Mr RANDALL (Canning) (11.25 a.m.)

I am very pleased to speak on the Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, because it is a bill I have a direct interest in. The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I was a member, delivered a marvellous report called Saving our census and preserving our history. Membership of this committee provides an interesting snapshot of the changes in this parliament.

The committee chair at that time was the Hon. Kevin Andrews, who, as we know, has taken an elevated position in the parliament since that time. I was the member for Swan in that parliament. I lost that seat and have now come back as the member for Canning. Other members of the committee were the Hon. Neil Andrew, who has moved on, Duncan Kerr and Peter McGauran.
Another member of that committee I particularly want to mention is the Hon. Stephen Mutch, who was the former member for Cook.

Stephen Mutch was somebody who I had an enormous amount of time for. He also took particular interest in this committee and we travelled the length and breadth of Australia taking evidence.

As a result of this committee work five recommendations were made. The first recommendation is probably one of the most important. The Committee recommends that name-identified information contained in forms from future censuses be retained. The Committee further recommends that specific legislation be implemented to provide for the retention of name-identified information from all future censuses.

That report was delivered in May 1998 and has finally delivered the result in 2005. For those people who do not think reports in this place carry any weight or have any relevance, this report done on behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 1998 is bearing fruit today. The Treasurer provided the terms of reference on census retention. He is obviously keen to see the benefits of census retention as part of this legislation today. Besides the Treasurer, in the ensuing period there has been strong support from the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Mr Chris Pearce. He has been a strong advocate of this current legislation. Senator Mitch Fifield has also been very strong in his support.

Another interesting matter is that one of the very passionate groups of people that have supported this legislation has been the "Save the Census" lobby. The Save the Census lobby is made up of such people as genealogists, academic historians, epidemiologists and geneticists. The people who were against the retention were people such as the Australian Privacy Foundation. As an interesting aside, we found that, if you type the word "genealogy" into the Google search engine on the internet, you will find that there have been 59 million hits. This compares to 22 million for "Elvis" and 217 million if you typed in the word "sex". That is how interested people are in learning about aspects of their history and genealogy.

In the taking of evidence, in particular, the importance of information was borne out quite strongly. It was not just for historical information for families et cetera; it was well documented by geneticists et cetera that the retention and name retention of census information is a magnificent tool with which to track diseases and genetic disorders down through the history and through families. As a result, this was something that was deemed to be strongly supported. We know that the census is an important social record for the Australian culture. This is, as I said, a cultural aspect as well as a statistical tool. The Australians of tomorrow have a right to know their history, and we must balance their right to know with an appropriate right to privacy for living Australians.

While I am addressing this matter, I would like to mention a strong advocate and one of the people following this issue very closely during the reference which resulted in the 1998 report. I refer to a gentleman called Mr Nick Vine Hall. He is a genealogist and a maritime historian. He has produced several books; one, now in its third edition, is called Tracing your Family History in Australia: A National Guide To Sources. Mr Vine Hall is the chairman (of the Census Working Party) of the Australasian Federation of Family History Organisations. That is the peak body in Australia and New Zealand. It is very keen on this legislation because it provides its member organisations with a great tool in tracing family histories.
I have to congratulate Mr Nick Vine Hall not only on the evidence he gave to the committee in 1998 but also because of his ongoing support of this census retention lobby. As we know, as I said earlier, the ABS particularly its boss at that time did all it could to stop this legislation getting to where it is today. I have mentioned my former colleague and friend Stephen Mutch, the former member for Cook. One of the interesting things to come out of the history is that the organisation has continued to assiduously promote the benefits of the retention of census material. It should be very pleased to see today's legislation passing through the parliament.

We know that there was a successful trial in the 2001 census when Australians had an opt-in/opt-out choice of whether they wished to have their material retained, and over 52 per cent decided they wanted to have it retained. The 2006 census will again be an opportunity for all those involved in the census for all the right reasons, as I have pointed out to have their information retained. Those who do not can rest assured that that information will be destroyed and pulped. That should give some comfort to those from the privacy lobby who for some reason seem to be quite alarmed about any information being retained for the good of all Australians.

Those who wish to take part can indicate on the census form that they specifically agree to this information being retained, and the National Archives of Australia will ensure the information is kept safe and secure and will not be released until the end of a 99-year period, which I think is quite fair and reasonable. I certainly will not be around then to delve into anyone's background, skeletons or nefarious behaviour. I think there are lots of checks and balances there.

One of the concerns in evidence to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was how we were going to retain this information for 99 years. There was much debate on the ability to retain information in an orderly way. We know that if we were to retain it in paper form, we would have to build a couple of large buildings to house it over the ensuing years. We have progressed a long way since doing it on microfiche, and there was a much debate about doing it electronically on computers. It was eventually determined that the National Archives of Australia do have the capability and the modern technology to retain it in both a private and proper way well into the future. In support of this information being retained, I can report that Australia did keep census information many years ago. In fact, the last time that name-identified data was retained was in 1828. So we have done it before, but the privacy lobby then took over and people's concerns were addressed.

The Australian government has provided sufficient funding through the budgetary process so that this information cannot only be used but then be stored. Nineteen million dollars has been set aside to do this. If I am correct, the previous census took about $4 million to conduct, but this $19 million will go forward to provide the resources, the technology and the expertise to retain this information well into the future.

The AFFHO, which again I will point out is the Australian Federation of Family History Organisations, covers both Australia and New Zealand, and it is keen to work with the government to develop a national policy on record retention in this country, especially in respect of certain basic data about each of our citizens, which should be collected and retained in perpetuity.
Currently we have birth, death and marriage records kept by the various states, but there are all sorts of variations about what is collected, access rules and privacy periods. The same anomalies exist with adoption and divorce records around this country. That is interesting because, as millions of Australians were not born in this country, we do not even have their birth records. Millions of people are not on electoral rolls, and the keeping of basic historical records around Australia in government departments and archives is in disharmony. So this information will go somewhat to addressing the dislocation and disharmony that currently exist throughout the number of jurisdictions around Australia.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that this is a great move forward for Australia because it gives a statistical snapshot of the Australian people at a particular time. It also provides information not only for genealogists but also in the medical field. This will help track people in a longitudinal type survey for genetic disorders, which will have a positive benefit. As a result, I am very pleased, having been associated with the original report, to see this legislation go through the House today. I commend the bill to the House.