Bills

Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:52): I thank everybody who has participated. I guess we will probably get into some detail in the context of a committee, because I understand we have amendments and we are going into committee. I will make it clear that there is nothing in this portfolio bill which is in any way designed to be anything other than a modest adjustment of arrangements in the way that we do from time to time. We have miscellaneous things come up, we put them in a bucket, when the bucket is nearly full, we take it to parliamentary counsel, parliamentary counsel kindly drafts a set of amendments for us, and rather than call them 'The Odds and Sods Amendment Bill', we call it a portfolio bill. There is no more or less magic to it than that.

My second point is I gather that some people have got concerns about the proposed provisions dealing with access to information in the courts. I want to make it very clear to everybody that the genesis of that provision is by way of an explicit request from the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would have thought that when the Director of Public Prosecutions is making a request of the parliament, it should be dealt with very sympathetically and very respectfully and not treated as an excuse to attempt to ingratiate oneself to media outlets.

The other thing I would like to point out is that the very people who were apoplectic a week or two ago about what they claim to be one of the greatest crimes of the 21^st century, being silly busybodies peering into people's records in the health department, the very people who were apoplectic about that have a completely different point of view if it is busybodies going down to the courts to try to find the same material—completely different. That is okay, that is fine, you can go down there and you can find toxicology reports, you can find anything you want down there, and that is all good, and you do not even have to let the accused person know that you are going down there; you can just do it anytime you like. Why? Because you want to.

I get back to the point I have made several times in different contexts: just because something is of interest to the public does not mean it is in the public interest for that to be made public. That is the point. There are a lot of things the public are interested in which they would do well to not bother being interested in, and there are some times, connected with the proper administration of justice, where letting any busybody who wants to go down to the court and peer into files without anybody knowing what they are doing is not necessarily in the public interest.

I regard this as an important, sincere proposition advanced to me because of grave concerns held by the Director of Public Prosecutions about a particular matter which is in the courts presently. The hypocrisy of the histrionic performance a couple of weeks ago about busybodies in the health department inappropriately and unlawfully accessing people's information, and how the world was about to end because of this, the same people—the same people—have gone 180 degrees and said, 'Look, all you busybodies, don't worry about going to the computer in the health department, just head down to the courts.' That is what they are doing. And, can I add one more point on this topic as well?

Ms Chapman: Well, wait until the committee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is coming from an opposition, in particular the shadow attorney, who, if my recollection is correct, has chastised me for my lack of action in doing something about civil actions for breaches of privacy. I have taken her chastisement deeply to heart and I intend to do something about that so that she can stop chastising me.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is reminded that she may have her outfit on but that doesn't mean she can speak.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And may I compliment the deputy leader on her bar attire; it is very good.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're jealous.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am, because mine is much older than that and does not—

Ms Chapman: Mine's 30 years old.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Mine is possibly older than that, unfortunately. Anyway, should I keep going or stop?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You might have to seek leave to continue your remarks, because I do not want to cut you off. I know there is more.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 to 13:59.