Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The majority of Australians, especially the younger generation, frequently share their personal information online through everyday tasks, such as paying bills, purchasing concert tickets, online shopping, entering competitions and social networking sites. In fact, in today's technologically driven society, most people no longer think twice about the potential dangers of constantly sharing private personal information in the online world, but there are serious risks to doing so. That is why it is so vital that there are rules and restrictions placed on companies and organisations that specify how they can collect, use and disclose customers' personal information. The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 seeks to make Australia's privacy protection framework relevant to the modern era of online information sharing.

I turn now to the specifics of the bill. The bill seeks to amend the Privacy Act 1988 to implement the first stage response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report, For your information: Australian privacy law and practice, published on 25 June 2006. That report contained 295 recommendations, 197 of which are addressed in this bill. The principal amendments proposed in this bill are to (1) establish the Australian Privacy Principles, a single set of privacy principles applying to both Commonwealth agencies and the private sector, to replace the existing Information Privacy Principles for the public sector, and the National Privacy Principles for the private sector; (2) introduce more comprehensive credit reporting with improved privacy protections; (3) introduce provisions on privacy codes and the credit reporting code, including powers for the Privacy Commissioner to register codes that are binding on specified agencies and corporations; (4) clarify the functions and powers of the commissioner, including those to resolve complaints, encourage the use of external dispute resolution services and conduct investigations; and (5) insert a new part to deal with civil penalties for contraventions. Maximum penalties are $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation, for serious and repeat contraventions.

This bill is lengthy and complex and contains important changes to the regimes governing credit reporting and the use of personal information. The aspect that has generated most stakeholder comment concerns the transition from negative to positive credit reporting. Industry stakeholders strongly support positive credit reporting, which enables lenders to assess the maintenance of credit accounts rather than simply instances of default. Positive credit reporting is seen as a much more reliable guide to a person's ability to service a loan and is likely to have considerable value to consumers. However, there are reservations with the proposed regime: for example, access to new data by telecoms and utilities is excluded, despite the value this should represent to them and to consumers.

The proposed restrictions on access to data by offshore entities has also been criticised as overlooking potential safeguards, and stakeholders suggest that there should be a carve-out for trans-Tasman data flows, given the interconnectedness of the Australian and New Zealand economies. In addition, the civil penalties regime is seen as unduly harsh, especially in the case of human inadvertence, despite the existence of secure and tested data management systems.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs are both inquiring into the bill but have not yet reported, which is surprising given that we are debating it here today. It does seem to be part of an increasing practice by the government to bring bills on for debate in this chamber without the House committee even having a chance to report. To the opposition, that does seem like putting the cart before the horse.

One of the more notable submissions to the Senate inquiry was from the Australasian Retail Credit Association, who represent Australia's credit reporting agencies and major banking and financial services organisations. They had four key areas of concern, which are shared by other industry stakeholders who submitted to the Senate inquiry. The first area of concern to the association is the issue of cross-border data sharing. They recommended that the bill be amended so that:

Australian Privacy Principle 8—

applies to credit information in the same way it applies to other forms of personal information; and

The association's second area of concern is restrictions on the use of de-identified data. They note in their submission:

De-identified information is, by definition, credit reporting information that is no longer personal information. ARCA considers it unnecessary and inappropriate for the use and disclosure of this information to be regulated by the Privacy Act.

The third area of concern addressed in the association's submission is commencement arrangements. They explain:

… the Bill provides for the commencement of the new credit reporting regime nine months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. By trying to implement the reforms in a nine month window, there is a risk that consumers will experience real negative impacts from the credit reporting changes …

The fourth, and last, area of concern to the Australasian Retail Credit Association is corrections and complaints. As they detail in their submission:

Unless the complaints handling process in the Bill is amended, it will require a complex system to be developed between the multitude of Credit Providers and CRBs—

credit reporting bodies—

who use the credit reporting system to manage the finalisation of consumer complaints. Such a system would increase the risk of inadvertent disclosure, remove the ability of the consumer to deal directly with the cause of the complaint, and is against industry practice and good business practice regarding customer service.

The coalition urges the Senate committee to further investigate the recommendations made in this submission and made by others who had similar concerns about the bill and who took the time to make submissions.

This is a very important bill with significant implications for the financial sector. While the coalition welcomes the bill and key stakeholders have welcomed the introduction of positive credit reporting, there are serious concerns as to cross-border data sharing and the use of de-identified data. The concerns are likely to be reflected in the House and Senate committees' reports, and amendments are likely to be recommended. In these circumstances, you really wonder why we are debating this bill in the House today, when those committee reports have not been finalised. When stakeholders make submissions to committee inquiries, which is often a very time-consuming process that they put a lot of effort into, I think they could reasonably expect that the parliament would not discuss the legislation until it had had time to consider the committee reports. This is yet another bill that we are debating this week where we have not had the chance to do that.

I call on the government to take the parliamentary committee process seriously.

Obviously, a lot of government members sit on committees—for example, committees are chaired by government members—and I am surprised that the government has so little regard for the committee process whereby we are debating bills here before the relevant committees have had a chance to report on references that they have been given or that they have chosen themselves.

On behalf of the opposition I thank industry stakeholders who have contributed to the important reforms in this bill. I apologise that the parliament is looking at the bill before some of the concerns of these stakeholders can be readily examined. We support the aims of the bill as an opposition; however, considering the number of amendments it is making, we believe that it is important that the bill be thoroughly and properly examined. It would have been far better if we could have had a look at the pending House and Senate committee reports before we examined the bill. Doing this would have been particularly essential given this government's well-earned reputation for incompetence. Rushing legislation through without proper consideration and attention to detail is just a recipe for incompetence to be perpetuated and is not good legislative practice. While the opposition supports the bill and its aims, I urge the government, when it is moving legislation that is obviously complex and is going to impact on particular industries very heavily, to let this House and the Senate do their job properly.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Personal information is becoming more sensitive and valuable in the expanding online world. Protecting the privacy of personal information is a real concern for consumers and business. On one estimate, identity theft and fraud affects half a million Australians every year. In 2007, my friend Joshua Gans wrote in his blog about his own experience of identity theft. He wrote that somebody had obtained his details using his birthdate, which was available on his CV. They then obtained a Medicare card and began to open bank accounts in his name. He discovered later that he was among the victims of a large scamming operation which has since been shut down by the authorities. He was pretty shocked by the experience. Joshua's experience shows the importance of privacy protection and why we need strong legislative protection of personal information.

The Labor Party has a tradition of consumer protection, and it is in this tradition that we are strong believers in protecting privacy. We understand that to protect individual freedoms, you need appropriate privacy laws. Consumers deserve protection from the disclosure of credit reporting information and its use in direct marketing. Businesses will benefit from a credit reporting system that is accurate and up to date. In this bill, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012, we are striking a balance between the needs of consumers and businesses to operate and adequate protections of the disclosure of personal information and credit reporting.

It was the Labor Party which, in 1990, introduced credit reporting. The Privacy Amendment Act was directed at the activities of credit reporting agencies. A number of other bodies, such as consumer groups, have expressed concern about the potential for breaches of privacy by the users of the agencies and about the inaccuracy of some of the information held by agencies. This inaccuracy has usually resulted from incorrect information being passed to the agency or from a failure to update information under such circumstances—for example, when a person has subsequently paid a debt on which they had previously defaulted.

Labor is committed to containing the growing level of unmanageable personal debt, and we want to make sure that credit providers have access to a wider range of information about an individual's financial situation. Credit providers themselves are an important check on individuals taking on unmanageable debt. So, in reforming credit reporting, we introduced requirements that records be kept of inquiries made by credit providers for payments that are overdue by at least 90 days. We limited the maximum period for which information can be kept to no more than seven years. We empowered credit consumers by enabling a person to request that their information be altered if they disagree with the information held by a credit reporting agency.

This government also introduced the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, which implemented a new consumer credit regulation framework to replace the state based regulatory framework known as the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. That reform addressed the problems that emerged with the operation of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code to guarantee consistency among jurisdictions. We knew that there were risks associated with the continued lack of comprehensive government supervision of finance-broking practices, and that is why we took action to protect consumers from onerous mortgages.

The Law Reform Commission's 2008 report For your information: Australian privacy law and practiceinforms the measures proposed in this bill. The report argued:

As a recognised human right, privacy protection generally should take precedence over a range of other countervailing interests, such as cost and convenience.

It noted that rapid advances in information, communication and surveillance technologies have created a range of previously unforeseen privacy issues. It also noted that regional political and economic blocs, such as the EU and APEC, have created pressure for Australia's privacy protection regime to align with those of Australia's key trading partners.

The Australian retail industry has noted the rapid rise of online shopping. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics data, in 2008-09 just under two-thirds of Australian adults had used the internet to purchase goods and services in the previous 12 months. The wife of one of my staff has said that, when she wants to buy new clothes for her baby daughter, she does it through Etsy. Etsy is a perfect example of the interconnectedness brought about by online retailing. Dresses from the United States, toys from Italy and hairclips from Turkey can all be purchased online—and, of course, online retailers are holding email addresses, credit card details and other personal information.

While it is terrific to be able to have access to a wider range of goods—and a wider range of goods is as important a benefit of trade as lower prices—it is also important to make sure that we manage the risks regarding the protection of private information. The Australian Crime Commission have described identity theft as one of the fastest growing crimes in Australia. They highlight how identity crime causes financial damage to consumers, lending institutions, retail establishments and the economy as a whole because of the confidence-sapping effect of identity crime and the tendency for victims to then cease engaging in online transactions.

Identity crime fuels other criminal activities. Criminals will sometimes use identity crime, for example, in order to rent a car to carry out another offence. It erodes the trust consumers have in service providers. It causes emotional distress for victims. Someone ultimately has to foot the bill, whether that is a business or an individual. It can even threaten the safety of people who have had their data exposed. We have seen some of these instances in the world of online socialising.

The sophistication and speed with which hackers can breach online security systems is, frankly, breathtaking. Here is a story from Wired magazine demonstrating how easily and quickly this was done to Matt Honan through breaching Amazon and Apple security systems. He related how in the space of just an hour his 'digital life' was destroyed. Here is his chronology:

At 5:02 p.m., they reset my Twitter password. At 5:00 they used iCloud's "Find My" tool to remotely wipe my iPhone. At 5:01 they remotely wiped my iPad. At 5:05 they remotely wiped my MacBook. Around this same time, they deleted my Google account. At 5:10, I placed the call to AppleCare. At 5:12 the attackers posted a message to my account on Twitter taking credit for the hack.

All of that happened in the space of 12 minutes. When we are up against hackers like that, it is critical that the law adapts as well, that we enhance the protections around the collection, storage, security and use of personal information in today's digital world.

With so many Australians conducting business online, dealing with identity theft through the internet and cybercrime are substantial concerns for this government and law enforcement agencies. On an online forum I found one story about somebody who had been a victim of internet identity theft. Told anonymously, it read as follows:

Not too long ago, I made a disturbing discovery. I received a statement in the mail for a department store credit card that I hadn’t authorized, and noticed a shipping address that was not my own. My name was listed on the bill, and my home address was recorded as the billing address – but the shipping address was for a location in an entirely different state.

I immediately called the credit card company to find out what was happening, thinking there must be some kind of mistake. I was connected with a helpful customer service representative who was able to quickly determine that I was a victim of fraud. Thankfully, she believed me when I insisted I had not authorized this card to be opened.

Once the customer service representative had notified her company’s fraud department, I asked if she might be able to give me any further information. She was very helpful and gave me the name of the person who had opened the account.

After hanging up with the credit card company, I immediately did a quick Internet search. Having the name of the women who opened the account, and knowing the state where the products were sent made my search rather easy. Soon I was able to locate a telephone number for the person who had opened this credit card in my name, without my permission.

I dialed the number and was a little surprised to hear an older woman’s voice on the phone. She was clearly unnerved when I told her my name and asked why she had opened an account using my identity. Out spilled her story of meeting a man with my name in an Internet chat room.

Nervously she shared how he had convinced her to open a few credit card accounts on his behalf. He gave her the necessary information and directed her to make store credit purchases at a major department store, a clothing store, and a toy store. I was a bit alarmed – the major department store was not the only place where an unauthorized credit card had been issued.

The woman continued to tell me that the impostor had convinced her he wasn’t able to purchase products from the United States on his own and needed her help. He told her she would be doing him a big favor if she would order items on his behalf, and have them sent to her address. Then, she was directed to ship the items to him at an address outside the country.

…   …   …

It did take a few weeks and some follow-up phone calls for the matter to be completely resolved with all the stores. However, it took longer to shake the feeling of being violated. It was unnerving to know that someone else had used my name and information to open a line of credit without my knowledge. It could happen again, and it could happen to anyone.

And it does.

The extent and severity of identity theft and fraud in Australia are difficult to pinpoint, but one estimate from the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre found identity fraud costs $1 billion every year. That estimate is from 2003, so the cost is almost certainly higher now. The ABS conducted a personal fraud survey, as I noted earlier, and estimated about half a million victims of identity fraud over the prior 12 months.

We are tightening the rules on sending personal information outside Australia. Before an agency or organisation discloses personal information to an overseas recipient, it will have to take reasonable steps to make sure the recipient does not breach the Australian Privacy Principles. Under the reforms in the bill, the agency or organisation will remain responsible for the personal information even when it is in the hands of the overseas recipient. The security of personal information will be the responsibility of the overseas recipient only in limited circumstances.

This bill is part of the government's response to the For your information report. It introduces three key reforms to the Privacy Act 1988: new unified Australian Privacy Principles that will apply equally to the private and public sectors; more comprehensive credit reporting that will include positive information in consumers' credit reports; and new powers for the Australian Privacy Commissioner to handle complaints and give remedies to consumers. These three reforms will deal with the handling of personal information and include provisions for the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and accuracy of information.

A new principle will give more power to consumers to opt out of receiving direct marketing materials—an issue that I know, Deputy Speaker Georganas, is close to your heart with your strong advocacy for a 'do not knock' register. This reform more tightly regulates the use of personal information for direct marketing. Companies will have to provide a clear and simple way of opting out. The reforms to consumer credit reporting, as I said earlier, sit very much in a Labor tradition.

These are reforms that will benefit consumers and benefit businesses. By minimising identity fraud and maximising confidence in online trading, we will ensure that Australians are able to continue socialising online and communicating with businesses with confidence that the laws that underpin their dealings are advancing as the technology of hackers moves on. We are providing new powers to enable the Australian Privacy Commissioner to accept enforceable undertakings and, if warranted, to pursue civil penalties for a serious breach of privacy. We understand that individual freedoms require the protection of well-made laws, and that is in the great Labor tradition of protecting private information and standing up on the side of consumers. I commend the bill to the House.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012. I really want to put this bill into its historical context, to look at the principle it is addressing and then to deal with the substance, in those three phases.

Let us begin with the context. In a perverse way, this bill traces its way back to Italy in the 15th and 16th centuries, to the waves of history which came from the Renaissance. The first wave, of course, was the knowledge revolution and the democratisation of knowledge through the printing press and the gradual period of enlightenment where there was a physical ability to transmit ideas on a relatively mass scale. There was a willingness and an openness which emerged from the closed period of the Dark Ages in terms of the intellectual culture. That in turn contributed in no small way to the industrial revolution, the steam age and the way in which production was spread through mechanisation, with all of its upsides and all of its downsides. But in my judgement there has been an extraordinary march of history through the mechanisation of food production, through the massive productivity gains and through the electrification process, which is arguably the single biggest indicator of longevity and quality of life in our world today.

That then leads us to what I would regard as the third of the great ages, which is the age of communication. We have the technology in terms of the equipment, the democratisation of communication and the ability for each and every person to become an active publisher. People can be engaged in the process, which spreads across many different aspects of our lives. That historic context leads us to the great issues of privacy and protection. In a sense, we have to be honest about the trade-offs that we face. In many cases they align so that we can ensure that privacy and protection are given. Sometimes they conflict. I want to briefly place this bill in the context of weighting and the principles that apply to the balance between privacy and protection across the fronts of national security, commercial information and social engagement.

In terms of national security, mass communication and the democratisation of publishing through phones, iPads and all of the different online platforms as well as the general world allows us to know what is going on. We simply need to look at the fact that any person anywhere in the world with access to internet capabilities, from whatever platform, can now zoom in and be aware that there is a submarine base at Hainan, which would previously have been known only to a few. Only a few years ago this was unknown, inaccessible. Maybe the powers that be in the conclaves of US and other security agencies had the information, but now any person anywhere can tune in to much of what is happening with Chinese security in terms of the new submarine base that is being constructed in a subterranean cavern. They can access material about the United States.

It is an interesting question. There are strengths and there are weaknesses in that. But we also need to be aware that the national security issues in relation to the transmission of information through forces that seek to undermine society are real. So this is a great balance. There is a role for the ability to tap that information where it is in the national interest, but there have to be fundamental protocols around that. This bill is not so much about that space, but it moves into the second and third spaces of the commercial and the social.

The commercial benefit which flows from this era of instantaneous and ubiquitous communication capacity is this: it allows us to have access to the broadest range of goods at the cheapest possible prices from the widest range of sources. That is an unalloyed good. It may make it difficult for certain firms in certain places, but the net process is about democratising the process of buying, giving people access to the things that they seek and the ability to acquire them. It can be a great challenge for our retail community, but we have been through the transition from horse and buggy to car. We have been through the transition from black and white to colour. It is simply a historic fact through which we will have to pass and adapt.

But what in particular this means is that the process of online acquisition leads to the transmission of credit details, and it is absolutely critical that those credit details are protected, that they are not to spread around, precisely because of the examples that many have given.

There can be theft, abuse and spreading of information. The information that is fundamental to our lives is at risk of being spread throughout the world, to be misused for criminal purposes. It is at risk of being easily and lightly given to those who would exploit it for their own commercial ends. They simply break down individual privacy, in terms of people's purchasing habits and the sanctity and the freedom of their own personal space on the net and in their own homes. The stories of people receiving unwanted, pestering calls are legion. That is the great challenge. I firmly, clearly, absolutely come down on the side of privacy in that space.

The third of the areas in which we need to weight principles is social media. Again the foundation principle is privacy, but there is a criminal practice in relation to engaging in the online abuse, potentially leading to real-world abuse, of underage people. The practice of grooming is all too real. It is a significant problem, and every parent will be concerned about it. I have a three-year-old son who has mastered many of the details of the iPad. He is not alone; he is indicative of kids of that age. The technology has them engaged right from the start. That generation will evolve at a faster rate than we could ever imagine. There is a trade-off between privacy and security. Where there is any risk of younger people being exposed to risk to their personal security, that is where we must breach the veil of privacy and allow agencies to have access to material—to peek behind the veil of privacy—so there can be no risk at any time of an impact on any children that puts them in harm's way, whether in an online and digital sense or in a real-world and physical sense.

Those are the principles to which I apply the balance between privacy and security. I come down on the side of a slight erosion of privacy in relation to national security and personal security, but I do not see any basis for breaching privacy in relation to commercial security unless there is clear and manifest evidence of criminal activity.

Of the three areas I have spoken about, this bill deals overwhelmingly with the commercial. The bill seeks to do five things which are desirable. Firstly, it establishes the Australian Privacy Principles. They are a single set of privacy principles that apply to both Commonwealth agencies and the private sector. That is a good thing. Secondly, it introduces more-comprehensive credit reporting with improved privacy protections. I am particularly focused on the improved privacy protections, which fit the elements and principles that I laid out earlier. Thirdly, it introduces new provisions on privacy codes and the credit reporting code, including powers for the Privacy Commissioner to register those codes and to ensure that they are binding on specified agencies and corporations. In short, it is making sure that the watchers are watched. It is building in a layer of protection against state abuse. Fourthly, it clarifies the functions and powers of the Privacy Commissioner, including those used to resolve complaints, encourage the use of external dispute resolution services and conduct investigations. Finally, it ensures that there are penalties for contraventions by those who are custodians of commercial information and who seek to abuse that custodianship; in particular, it ensures that there is a duty of care and a responsibility for making sure that that information is not lightly or improperly passed on. If it is, there is a chain of custodianship that imposes obligations. I think that is entirely reasonable.

We are disappointed, however, that the government has not seen fit to allow to run the full processes whereby the House and the Senate can conduct their inquiries. I think that is a mistake and a breach of faith. We reserve our right to move amendments in the Senate on the basis of the great instruments of the people that are the parliament and committees examining and considering the bill and suggesting improvements to it. We will reserve our judgement on that front. At this point we think that the bill is worthy and valuable but that it can potentially be improved with the insights to be gained. I cannot see why the government has breached the faith and failed to allow those committees to have adequate time to conduct their investigations and present their findings and, therefore, potentially to make their recommendations. I think that is a mistake.

Having said that, this bill is part of a historic context. It fits in the course of action over the last 400 years, from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, through the Age of Knowledge, the Age of Steam and the Industrial Revolution to, now, the mass democratisation of communications. We have the challenge as representatives in this parliament of ensuring that the balance between privacy and protection is right. This bill tilts the balance in the commercial sector more in favour of privacy and less in favour of those who might wilfully or even inadvertently misuse the commercial information that has been given to them. For those reasons, I support and we support the bill.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former practitioner in this area I have believed for quite some time that the issue of privacy and privacy law is the big frontier for not only Australia but the world. When amendments made to the Privacy Act 1988 came in more than 10 years ago to extend privacy protections to the private sector, I believe there was a tendency to regard privacy as an issue you would tack on to the end of a commercial deal. You would consider it at the last minute. It was on a checklist of things you knew you were going to be able to tick so you did not pay very much attention to it. It is largely thanks to the amendments in 2000-01, when the Privacy Act was extended to cover organisations as eligible entities, that we have had a very strong commercial focus on privacy and its importance to people.

Even prior to that, I remember in the late 1990s, when the term 'e-commerce' was only starting to emerge, there were a number of government institutions and advisory committees set up to advise on how Australia would be able to harness this relatively new thing called the internet; and, consistently, people's ability to trust the way their personal information would be collected, used and disclosed was rated as most important. It was considered to be the single most important factor in enabling participation in the online economy to flourish, and I do not think that has changed. The comments from other speakers this morning are consistent with that as well.

In terms of the collection, use and disclosure of information, there is a broader challenge today, and that is where someone has, so to speak, acquiesced to disclosing information—that is, the participation of individuals in the social media space and our willingness to give over personal information. If we counted the number of times a day that we give our personal information to complete strangers, both individuals and organisations, I think we would be alarmed—or, maybe, in some cases, not even surprised by the number of times we do that. And I think we would be horrified if we found out the exact ways in which organisations were going to use our personal information, if we had actual knowledge of how that information would be treated. Most of us probably would not know what those uses would be.

When I was first engaging in privacy law—again, this in the late 1990s—the first principle by which privacy would be explained was not only in terms of the UN convention upon which our Privacy Act is based but also in terms of the principle, harking back centuries, of privacy being the right to be left alone. I do not think there would be too many people in the information age who believe they have a right to be left alone or who would even concede that they wanted to be left alone—that is, locked out of the digital age. It is also important to remember that, back then, we would only deal with the issue of privacy as law if it came within the Privacy Act following 1988. In addition, privacy was largely dealt with in terms of civil claims. There is a celebrated case that all law students learn in torts where lights being shone on someone's backyard was a so-called interference with privacy. But a lot of these were simply cases of trespass.

I think a lot of people in Australia, when they think about the right to privacy, are largely informed by what they hear and see from overseas, such as the case in the UK of Naomi Campbell being photographed here or superstars having their weddings photographed by someone when they had signed up to an exclusive arrangement with another organisation for the photos. A lot of people in Australia think about privacy in those terms. However, I think you would find most people consider privacy in terms of what is going to happen to their personal information when they disclose it, and what means of redress they have if they believe those rights have been infringed.

And so we come to the legislation before us today, the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012. It is worth reminding ourselves that there are whole other regimes of privacy law that cover a number of different areas. For example, even before the amendments to the Privacy Act that included private sector organisations, the telecommunications industry had its own, telco-specific privacy regulations and has for as long as I can remember. They include things like part 13 of the Telecommunications Act, dealing with how data could be used; the integrated public number database, the IPND, which contains the numbers of everyone in Australia with a telco device; and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. There are specific schedules in the Criminal Code Act which deal with privacy in telecommunications. We have surveillance legislation covering things like listening devices, not only federally but across state and territory jurisdictions. Further, there are specific privacy laws relating to things like tax file numbers, and, under the Corporations Act, how you can use shareholder details. So privacy protections are not novel, which is something I am very proud of. We have very specific privacy rules around information that are always considered to be important.

I think that what a lot of people are particularly concerned about today, when I talk about privacy being the next big frontier, is the way in which sensitive information is dealt with. The National Privacy Principles, as they previously stood, did recognise that sensitive information, which includes health information, warranted its own set of standards. That is something I have always believed, because, when you think about it, sensitive information includes not only health information but also things like sexual orientation. Those are factors that can be distorted or used to exclude people from certain things, and that people have a right to consider even more important than their name and address.

I thought about this recently when my baby was born: within a week, her personal information had been disclosed to any number of entities. She had her blue book and a tag around her leg which gave her a specific number, and we also chose to have a sample of her cord blood stored.

This baby was barely a couple of weeks old and already she had so much personal information, and sensitive information at that, being stored.

It also goes to the very important issue of data profiling, something which has not been looked at closely in Australia compared to in the US. I would hope we could minimise and avoid in Australia the opportunity to undertake often insidious activities such as data profiling based on personal information.

Some of the issues I raised in the inquiry into this bill by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs arise from my experiences as a practitioner in this area. One of the areas on which I often had cause to reflect was the practical implications of potential or actual breaches of data disclosure. Mr Pilgrim, the Australian Privacy Commissioner from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, confirmed a lot of what I believed operated in a very practical sense—that is, often, if there is a data breach by an organisation, the key steps of demonstrating that that breach was inadvertent lead to the Privacy Commissioner not pursuing the matter. Some people might think, 'That defeats the whole purpose of having a law; it should have very strong enforcement powers for any breaches, particularly breaches by large organisations.' We have seen a number of those large organisations in the media in the past, from the financial services sector even to telecommunications. But it is very important for the Privacy Act to continue to operate to provide a very strong incentive in the two respects I mentioned earlier. If a consumer has confidence that an organisation is going to treat their personal information with appropriate collection, use and disclosure practices, I believe that provides a very strong incentive for consumers to want to continue doing business with that organisation. Also, we need to bear in mind that there are often cases in which data breaches are inadvertent which need to have a proportionate response from the Privacy Commissioner in those respects. It is also very important to recognise that the Australian Privacy Commissioner continues to take a very active role in educating organisations as to their obligations.

I would like to end by talking about some of the credit reporting provisions mentioned previously. As someone who quite often had to advise on this area, as they currently stand today I believe the provisions in the Privacy Act regarding credit reporting are some of the most complicated and onerous provisions you could deal with. The Privacy Commissioner and others involved in legislative drafting would agree that it is not the clearest law possible. I welcome the amendments in relation to credit reporting, again recognising that someone's credit record can follow them around for the rest of their lives. We have all heard of cases where someone with a poor credit record from having forgotten to pay a mobile phone bill when they were 18 years old has followed them through life and maybe even prohibited them from getting a home loan. It is essential that these reforms go through.

I would also like to say something about the transborder flow of information. Again this is something people do not have visibility of in everyday transactions because companies engage with offshore providers in providing back-end office services and there is no privity of contract as between the consumer and the outsourced entity.

As a practitioner—and I was taught very well by Peter Jones, a partner at Gilbert + Tobin—whenever we were advising clients on determining whether or not a transaction involving the offshoring of personal information was to occur, we had to ask ourselves what this was going to do to our reputation. Peter's starting point in any advice to clients was always, 'We will do everything we can in other areas to improve services, but if you believe that we will not be able to obtain the best and most robust security and guarantee as to how this information would be used, you might want to rethink entering into this transaction.'

I was even involved in cases where the exchange of data would occur between companies. When acting for multinational corporations, this was par for the course. Often people on the other side and the lawyers acting in other countries could not understand how robust the Australian privacy regime was. That bodes well for our Privacy Act. This bill will only add to that, and I commend the bill to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 and I particularly commend the contribution by the member for Greenway. I am chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and, as discussed by earlier speakers, my committee is looking into this bill; nevertheless, I am going to make a contribution to this debate.

Consumer protection is a topic of importance to people in the Moreton electorate and throughout Australia. As noted by the member for Greenway, whilst we do have a good regime and we can hold our heads up high in terms of looking after people's privacy, perhaps second only to the French in some areas in protecting people's rights, there are always opportunities to look at the legislation and improve it. Every day people are faced with handling or disclosing personal information or trying to gain access to credit. Credit is obviously one of the great opportunities for people without money to generate wealth. It is the boon of the middle class, and in Australia where we have such strong banks it is an opportunity for people with secure employment to give their children a greater opportunity in life. So anything that secures good credit is to be commended and endorsed. Obviously we have seen in the United States the problems that come with bad credit, so we do take this area of law very seriously.

The bill before the chamber will implement key aspects of the government's first-stage response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into strengthening consumer protection. There are three key reforms in the bill. The new unified Australian Privacy Principles will apply equally to both the private and public sectors. The member for Greenway talked about this because of her previous calling as a privacy lawyer, and I thank her for her contribution because it was a great expose of some of the pitfalls that might confront people. The new unified Australian privacy principles will continue to deal with the handling of personal information, which includes the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and, most importantly, accuracy of information.

A new principle will be introduced to deal specifically with direct marketing. Stronger protections for consumers will be included in the bill for the disclosure of information to overseas companies and organisations. This is something that people are aware of. We saw Telstra announce the other day—yesterday, it might have been—that they were outsourcing some of the jobs that were undertaken in Australia to overseas entities. It does happen in the banking sector. I met with the Financial Services Union, who talked about their members' jobs being exported overseas and the protections being enforced by contract and Australian law rather than only Australian law. Whilst lawyers can do many things, there is obviously that element of risk associated with any overseas contractual relationship enforcing Australian law.

More comprehensive credit reporting will for the first time include positive information in consumers' credit reports supported by strong privacy protections for this information. For example, a credit card report will show when a debt is paid on time and paid on time regularly, not just when it was in default or overdue. I used to be an articled clerk and a lawyer who had the joy of going through some of these processes, especially in the low-level articled clerk procedures, where you would trawl through some of these things, and standard lawyer procedure in terms of setting up companies and the like, as any lawyer would do. So it will be great to see that people have a positive credit history rather than just looking at the black marks.

These reforms are expected to improve responsible lending and reduce levels of indebtedness and defaults. It does not happen every week but it is not uncommon for people to come into my office to talk about the black marks that are on their credit report, that are on their credit history, which then mean that they cannot move into housing, they cannot buy cars—the things that set you up in life. As anyone who has dealt with homelessness knows, as soon as someone loses that roof over their head and starts couch surfing or, heaven forbid, living in their car, the whole world can fall apart for that individual or for a family when the family has to change schools and face all the stresses that come with such things. So I particularly commend the minister for this initiative in getting rid of the black marks that too often have been indelible. Black marks for what someone thought was normal behaviour when they were a university student can stay with them into their 40s and 50s.

There are new powers for the Australian Privacy Commissioner to handle complaints and to give remedies to consumers. The new powers will include the ability to accept enforceable undertakings as well as the ability to pursue civil penalties for serious breaches of privacy. In terms of the carrot and stick approach to legislation, modern legislation seems to have different sizes of stick, and enforceable undertakings have been an important part of that in changing behaviour. There are gradual steps up in the enforcement process so that you can come down very hard on the rogues at the end of the process if need be or just give a guiding hand to someone early on in the process so that they are on the straight and narrow and good corporate citizens.

The Privacy Amendment Bill will modernise Australia's privacy law framework by creating a single, technology-neutral set of privacy principles for both the private sector and Australian government agencies. Importantly, this will benefit consumers by promoting transparency in the handling of personal information by requiring organisations to develop and publish more competitive privacy policies. This makes it easier for everyday people to access and correct their credit reporting information. Bolstering the Privacy Commissioner's powers to enforce compliance with the act will further protect victims of identity theft and fraud by providing them with the ability to prohibit, for a specified period, the disclosure of credit reporting information about them with their consent. This is an interconnected world and a world of social media. The NBN being rolled out around the nation will bring incredible benefits and is a big part of our productivity agenda, but it does mean that identity theft and fraud can take place anywhere now. We were down in your part of the world recently, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, speaking to seniors about the benefits and the challenges that come with the interconnected world. I thank you for that contribution. It was a great community area. I have forgotten the name of it but it was a great experience.

This bill will also protect minors by prohibiting the collection of credit-reporting information about individuals under the age of 18.

This bill will more clearly and tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing by introducing a specific privacy principle directed at direct-marketing activity and will prohibit the use of credit information for direct marketing. Too often, people are disrupted by the telephone or a knock at the door, with telemarketers trying to push a certain product—and I note that the member for Hindmarsh, who has spoken on this topic as well, is in the chamber. This bill will more tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing. It will give more power to consumers to opt out of receiving direct-marketing materials, with the onus on companies to provide a clear and simple way for consumers to opt out.

The movement of information across borders offers significant social and economic benefits, particularly in the context of e-commerce. The existing Privacy Act regulates the disclosure of personal information to people outside Australia. The reformed Privacy Act will enhance that protection by requiring an agency or organisation to have in place, before any disclosure occurs, arrangements to ensure that any overseas recipient will protect the personal information—for example, by making appropriate contractual arrangements. However, the agency or organisation will still remain responsible for the personal information even when it is in the hands of the overseas recipient. This will strengthen the protection for an individual's information where it is disclosed outside Australia.

The bill will also reform the consumer credit reporting system. This is the first reform since Labor introduced credit reporting in 1990. Along with our responsible lending reforms in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, these changes will mean that the banks see more accurate information about the types of accounts families have and when they were opened and closed; the current credit limits of accounts, but obviously not the day-to-day balance, as that privacy will still be protected; and the positive information about repayment history, as I touched on before—when a credit card was paid off on time, not just the default sort of information about overdue payments.

Access to more accurate information will mean that the banks can assess credit risks more accurately. Normally, the more accurately they can price the risk, the cheaper it is. It is expected that it will enhance existing responsible-lending obligations, leading to decreased levels of overindebtedness and lower credit default rates. It is also expected to create more competition and efficiency in the credit market, which may in turn lead to more affordable credit and mortgage insurance for consumers. I know that some mortgage insurance companies have some concerns, but I am optimistic that those concerns will be addressed in this process.

Consumers will now also have more power to manage and check their credit report, including improved rights to access and correct their credit report. Credit providers will have positive obligations to help consumers correct their credit information. It will be easier to make complaints about incorrect credit-reporting information. The bill will also prohibit the collection of credit-reporting information about individuals reasonably known to be under 18.

This bill will not only further protect consumers but will provide businesses with a more flexible and less prescriptive credit-reporting regime by emphasising industry-led complaint resolution. The new privacy principles are technology neutral and relevant to a technology-driven environment and have the flexibility to adapt to new technology as it develops. This bill will modernise the credit-reporting provisions to address the significant changes that have taken place since they were first enacted in 1990 and will allow more comprehensive credit reporting to ensure that the credit-reporting system includes accurate and up-to-date information.

This bill will not only make it easier for people to appropriately access credit but will give people the opportunity to make businesses and banks aware of their positive credit history. As a member of parliament with 19,000 small businesses in my electorate, I know how important that is—how people with the right opportunity, the right idea and the right support can then go on to create jobs. The millions and millions of jobs and employees in the small business sector need as much protection as possible.

The bill will also further protect consumers by tightening regulations for people's personal information and by giving consumers the ability to opt out of direct-marketing campaigns. This is a very interconnected world. Whilst I personally am not moved too much by ads, obviously direct-marketing campaigns are a boon in that they talk about things that you are interested in, whether it be through Facebook, your magazines or the like, so that is a good thing. If you are not interested in golf, there is no point in your being bombarded with ads about golfing, but, if you are, obviously that sort of direct-marketing campaign would be more appropriate.

This bill, in terms of having a logical approach to direct-marketing campaigns, will give a bit of protection, particularly to the vulnerable whom we hear of who can be targeted in some direct-marketing campaigns, particularly Indigenous communities or the CALD, or culturally and linguistically diverse, communities and also the elderly. This bill will keep pace with the ever-changing nature and modernisation of the consumer industry by placing more stringent conditions on access to offshore personal information. Obviously it will not stop every rogue. Knowledge about people is sought after by rogues, be they criminals or people who utilise sharp practice in their selling of products. But the bill before the chamber is delivering on the Gillard Labor government's response to the Australian Law Reform Commission's report, and I welcome any reform that seeks to strengthen consumer protection. I commend the minister for this bill and I also commend the bill to the House.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to be here to support the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 and to speak on the bill, which is about protecting people's personal information. That has been a very topical discussion in South Australia, especially in my electorate. Many people have been concerned about it. We hear about banking jobs being offshored and about telcos and a whole range of people offshoring.

Only the other day we heard that Telstra will be sending approximately 600 jobs offshore, which will mean that when you pick up the phone to give details about your personal information a lot of it will already be over there. It is always good for the consumer to know that that information is being sent overseas. This bill will require companies to let consumers know that their private information is being sent overseas. It is very important in the context of a lot of the financial institutions, insurance companies and telcos offshoring. A lot of our private information is in call centres in India, Manila and a whole range of other places. This is a good step in ensuring the privacy of that information.

Privacy has been a particular topic on radio in South Australia. On talkback radio Leon Bynder took up the case of privacy and the many overseas call centres. He contacted me a while back to see what could be done about it. Back then I remember speaking to the minister about this particular issue and I am very pleased to see this bill come to fruition here today. It has been ongoing for a couple of years since this was first discussed. I know that Leon Bynder has been a very strong advocate on 5AA for the protection of people's personal information, especially when it is going overseas. I congratulate Leon Bynder for taking the initiative on his program in South Australia to raise this issue and make it topical. I am very pleased that the minister took it on board and today we see this bill.

It would be preferable for all of us if our information did not go overseas. When you talk to people in the community they usually say that they would prefer for their information to stay here rather than be stored overseas. I can understand that, especially when it comes to our bank accounts, our telephone bills, our insurance bills and a whole range of other things. It is very personal and private information. You would not want it going into the wrong hands. We heard earlier some stories from the member for Fraser of identity fraud that had taken place.

In today's modern world are huge credit companies, insurance companies and all sorts of multinational companies which operate in every country and have offices all over the world. Whether the companies are overseas or in Australia, it is impossible to avoid some of your information going offshore. What this bill will do is make sure that, if your information does go overseas, for whatever reason, the company will be held to account for what happens to it, which is very important. This bill will mean that an agency or organisation that sends your information overseas will have to make sure they have strong protections in place to ensure they keep your data safe. It is very important for consumers to know there are strong protections in the place where that information is going to keep your data safe.

But more importantly—and this is a big thing—under the new reforms, customers will now have to be told if their information is going overseas and where it is going to. I think every consumer of any service has the absolute right to know if their private information is going overseas. The onus will now be on those companies to tell their customers that the information they are giving them about their dates of birth, credit card numbers, where they work and a whole range of things is going overseas and where it is going to. This is a huge win for those consumers and customers. Before, companies had no real obligation to tell their customers when they were sending details overseas, even bank details. Many of us have picked up the phone to find that we are talking to someone in Mumbai, Manila or somewhere else.

I am delighted to be speaking here today on these real reforms delivered by this Australian government that has listened to the community's concern, taken it into account and taken action. That is very important. Again, this is something that has been big in South Australia on talkback radio through Leon Bynder's program. It is something that has been in discussion for a long time. I know that it is strongly supported in my electorate, in South Australia and across Australia. Ensuring that every action is taken to keep your private information safe is very important.

I would also like to thank some of the trade unions that have been involved in this debate. I know the FSU, the ASU and the CPSU, all of which cover members in the insurance, banking and telco industries, are very pleased with these privacy reforms because all too often when information is sent overseas it is because the jobs have been sent overseas as well in many cases. This is the first step in ensuring that consumers are aware that, when they are doing a transaction or doing business with a particular company, it is the consumer's right to know that their information is going overseas and then they can make a choice. If they do not want that information going overseas then they can seek another company that services the industry and its customers here in Australia.

The temptation for companies to send jobs offshore, we know, will only increase. But there has never been a more important time to support Australian jobs. A part of the problem lies in the fact that until now consumers had no way of finding out if their data and the jobs were going overseas. So I am very pleased that the consumer will be told that their information is being sent overseas. The best thing about this bill is that it will help to give consumers more choice. They will be able to make a decision when they are told that their private information is going overseas and can then support the companies they wish to support.

If you can walk into a bank and see the terms and conditions on which your personal information will be sent overseas, that gives you the chance to say, 'No, thanks,' and walk into a credit union or the bank next door that is not sending information and its workforce overseas. It will give the consumer the choice. This bill actually has a lot of benefits in addition to protecting your privacy. It is quite a good new tool for the consumer. I will be doing all I can do to promote this bill in my electorate so that consumers know what their rights are when it comes to their privacy.

Another important aspect of the new bill is that it gives more power to the Privacy Commissioner. This is very important because then the Privacy Commissioner can sort issues out more quickly when they arise and can investigate better. This is great because too often we hear about an issue and take it to the authorities, whoever they may be, but for one reason or another they cannot actually investigate it. Giving the Privacy Commissioner new powers to sort these issues out more quickly is very positive for the consumer. This bill will give the Privacy Commissioner the teeth to take swift action when things go wrong, which will also encourage businesses to do the right thing in the first place.

There are a couple of other aspects of the bill which will make people's lives a bit easier. One is the new provisions about credit reporting, which are a real shake-up in favour of consumers. The bill will implement more comprehensive credit reporting, which will for the very first time include positive information in consumers' credit reports. For example, a credit report will show when a debt is paid on time, not just when it was overdue.

Secondly, the bill makes it easier for people to access their credit reports and to fix up mistakes when they occur. For example, quite often people come into my office—and I am sure all of us in this place have had the same experience—and tell me they have been denied a service, whether it be a new phone contract, a small banking loan or a credit card, because of a bad credit report. Even though that bad debt may already have been paid off and fixed, they still have it on their record. When they actually get their hands on a copy of the report, they find that the information is not correct. That has happened many times to constituents of mine. I have seen lots of cases where people have been given bad credit ratings and have fixed the issue by making the repayment or paying the bill but the credit report was never updated—that old information is still on there; there was never any onus to update it. Then they run into problems down the track—maybe many years afterwards—when they go to sign up for a new service. This bill will make it easier for those people to get their credit report and make sure that it is all correct. If it is not, the company will have the obligation now to help you fix it. They cannot just say, 'Go off and get the information.' They have the duty to help you fix it, and that is very important.

The last thing I wanted to mention is the new privacy principle in this bill that specifically deals with direct marketing. This bill will more clearly and tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing by introducing a specific privacy principle directed at direct marketing activity. It also prohibits the use of credit information for direct marketing. This is going to go a very long way towards ensuring responsible lending, so that vulnerable people do not get offered credit they cannot afford. In my electorate, someone with a disability came to see us who had racked up close to $50,000 worth of debt on a credit card because he kept on accepting the offers that the bank was sending him. This was a very sad case. This person was on a disability pension and could not afford to make the payments. He should never have been made those offers. His contract should never have been accepted by the bank, because he had an intellectual disability that affected him making contractual arrangements. This poor person came to see us and we finally assisted him. It took months and months to sort this problem out. This part of the bill is going a long way towards ensuring responsible lending, so that vulnerable people do not get given credit that they cannot afford. This is very important when there are vulnerable people in our community such as people with disabilities, as I said, and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds.

This is a very important bill for the consumer. The bill will set out new unified Australian privacy principles which will apply equally to the private and the public sectors. The principles will continue to deal with the handling of personal information, including its collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and accuracy. The provisions about disclosure and accuracy of the information are very important. A new principle will be introduced to deal specifically with direct marketing. Stronger protection for consumers will be included in the bill for the disclosure of information to overseas companies and organisations, and the bill will implement more comprehensive credit reporting, which will for the very first time include positive information for the consumers' credit reports. It is so important that we have that positive information for the consumer credit reports. As I said, a credit report will show when a debt is paid on time, not just when it was overdue, as we have seen in the past. This will be supported by very strong privacy protections for this information. These reforms will improve responsible lending and I am sure they will reduce levels of indebtedness and default. Very importantly, the bill will provide new powers to the Australian Privacy Commissioner to handle those complaints, to provide a wider range of enforceable remedies to the consumer and to direct government agencies to perform privacy impact assessments, which is all for the credit of the consumer. I congratulate the Attorney-General on her far-sighted reforms and thank my constituents, the listeners who rang in on the many, many times we raised this issue on FIVEaa, and Leon Byner for their support for privacy reform. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 will amend the Privacy Act 1988 to put into operation over half of the recommendations in the Australian Law Reform Commission's report 108, of 2008, called For your information: Australian privacy law and practice.

The aim of this bill is to create a new set of unified Australian privacy principles. These privacy principles will apply equally to the private and public sectors. The principles will maintain the handling of personal information, which includes the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure and accuracy of information. Importantly, there will be the establishment of a new principle that will specifically address direct marketing, which was applauded by my colleague the member for Hindmarsh just now.

It is very important to have in place stronger protections for consumers, such as disclosure of information to overseas companies and organisations. This bill will also put into practice more comprehensive credit reporting, which will, for the first time, include positive information in consumers' credit reports. I welcome this initiative because it rewards good behaviour.

I have spoken many times in this House on the issue of credit cards and people getting into serious debt as a result of credit cards, which is why I have been such a strong advocate for financial literacy training in my electorate, and why I have welcomed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer coming to the electorate a number of times. He has presented to a seniors group in Tuggeranong and also a group in Griffith, about financial literacy, the responsible use of credit, and, most importantly, scams.

These seminars have been a huge hit in the electorate. I am very much looking forward to having many more in the future, subject to the parliamentary secretary's diary and availability. I would particularly like him to come out during MoneySmart Week. I do not know whether that is going to be possible but I am very much looking forward to holding a number of these financial literacy seminars between now and the end of the year because they have been so popular. Not only do people get a raft of information on a range of areas, including scams, responsible use of credits cards, budgeting and superannuation, but they also go away with a fabulous show bag.

I will just go back to MoneySmart Week. MoneySmart Week is coming up in the first week of September. I strongly encourage all Australians, but most importantly Canberrans, to take part in MoneySmart Week. It is an independent, not-for-profit national initiative and it promotes the importance of financial literacy. Knowing how to make sound money decisions is a very important skill for people in today's world, regardless of their age. That has been obvious from my financial literacy seminars. I have had people from all ages, from all walks of life, coming to these seminars and trying to find out how they can better control their money and improve their financial management as a result of that.

There are a range of activities that are being held during MoneySmart Week including a call to action for Australians to take the next step in their financial health through 'Do a money health check!'. I did the money health check the other night, during one of the late night sittings. It only takes a few minutes. It gives you a really good idea about your wills, mortgage management, savings and a whole range of areas in terms of making yourself more money smart. So I do encourage people in the electorate—and Australians who are listening—to take that money health check. It is on the www.moneysmart.gov.au website. As I said, it takes a few minutes and it gives you a good, quick readout of your financial situation. It also gives you a number of tips and actions you can take to address the issues that are raised in the report card.

We also have a national awards program that recognises outstanding achievements in financial literacy and we are promoting existing money management programs, tools and resources, as well as conducting a special range of activities and events in workplaces and the community.

I just want to draw attention to one of the activities taking place in my electorate. On 5 September, from 10 to 11, the money health check, which I have just mentioned, and the Saver Plus information session will be held by the Smith Family in Woden. As I said, the money health check is a really useful tool, which I have been promoting through Twitter and Facebook, to help people to understand their financial state.

I also want to bring attention to the fact that the parliamentary secretary recently launched a TrackMySpend smart phone app. Again, this is available; you can download the app off the MoneySmart web site. It just means that when you are out in the shops with your smart phone you can link into the app—it is free—and you can put in how much you are spending on groceries or dinner and track your spending. You can work out how your spending goes against your budget and your savings. It is just another way that people can improve their understanding of their financial situation.

The ABS household expenditure data shows that the average Australian household spends about $1,236 per week, yet only 54 per cent of 1,400 people who completed the money health check tool that I just mentioned said that they knew exactly where their money is spent and what it is spent on. So this little smart phone app will help people gain a greater understanding. Having a greater understanding of what you are spending your money on gives you more power and control over your money.

Finally, I want to talk about scams. They come up a lot. I am sure that every member in this parliament has had constituents coming to talk to them about the fact that they have been scammed. My own mother has been scanned. My father-in-law, tragically just shortly after my mother-in-law died, was scammed. Many years ago I was scammed trying to get a US visa, when I thought I had to get a US visa. So many members of my family and many in my electorate have been the victims of scams.

The Australian Institute of Criminology recently released the results of the 2010-11 online scam survey that was held in partnership with the Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce. Australians who participated in the survey had lost almost $7 million in 2011. The annual survey gives a snapshot of our exposure to consumer scams and can help identify scams as they happen.

Most importantly—this would be of interest to many Canberrans and Australians listening—dating scams were the most likely to result in financial loss or the disclosure of personal details, with almost half of victims reporting they had lost money. So, I ask all of those who are looking for love to be aware of some of the scams that are out there.

Also, in 2010, people aged between 45 and 54 reported the highest percentage of victimisation in terms of scams. In 2011 the age group with the highest victimisation rate shifted to those aged 65 years and over. That is definitely borne out by the experience of those in my electorate. It is definitely that demographic coming to me and talking about how they have been duped in scams. Many of them have lost a lot of money. Again, I have spoken in his House about my—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.