Parliament Bill

Members, we now come to Part 10, which is the debate on clauses 230 to 237, “Amendments to Other Acts”, and Schedule 8. The question is that Part 10 stand part.

Oh, Madam Chair, what a treat.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Beating them off!

Yeah. Look, a very brief contribution here. It’s actually just around—so the key amendment here, one of the key amendments, is to the Privacy Act. Clause 231 inserts, essentially—or actually kind of reformulates an existing framing, which is the Parliamentary Service. It’s the Privacy Act, except in respect of—and these are exclusions. Actually, it’s quite important, that. Section 8(b), amended by clause 231, says these are excluded from the scope of being an agency under the Privacy Act, and they exclude the Parliamentary Service except in respect of employment information and personal information in respect of a security officer. That amended section 8(b)(vi)(B) is the new bit.

I’m just wondering, in terms of the Privacy Act, whether that will also capture the Office of the Clerk, or is the Office of the Clerk then by default captured? You haven’t expressly excluded it, and, under this piece of legislation, the Office of the Clerk is quite a distinct entity, as it is in this House and on precinct, from Parliamentary Service. Does that mean that the Office of the Clerk falls within the ambit of being an agency and therefore subject to the Privacy Act, or not?

The second question is the Parliamentary Corporation, which is one of those arcane beasts that exists around here, because that would seem to be an agency that is captured by the Privacy Act by not being included in this section. The Office of the Clerk is a little bit perplexing to me. The Parliamentary Corporation seems to have been included in the Privacy Act. Is that what is intended?

I’m advised that this clause 231 replacing section 8(b)(vi), in relation to section 8(b)(vi)(B), “personal information obtained by a parliamentary security officer”—I’m advised that’s intended to be included, after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. It’s to make it clear that any information obtained by a security officer through a search or security action on the precinct—which we dealt with a couple of weeks ago—is subject to the Privacy Act, essentially. The Privacy Commissioner recommended it and we’ve agreed.

Is the Minister confident that the Office of the Clerk is not subject to the Privacy Act?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I think the Minister is getting some advice.

Perhaps we could take that one on notice, Dr Webb? I mean, I don’t want to particularly hold the debate up. The officials are checking. We think the answer is no, but perhaps we can take it on notice and get back to you.

Perhaps we could. I’m happy to move on from this part, and the Minister can come back with me about it.

💬 Hon Chris Bishop: Sure.

Yeah, sure.

Part 10 agreed to.

Part 11 Repeals and revocation