Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I now move Democrat amendments (5) and (7) on sheet 5095 together:

(5)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 11), omit “not”.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 22), after section 80N, insert:

80NA Extension of declaration

Any declaration made under section 80J or 80K may be extended to a specified cessation time.

These amendments deal with the disallowance and extension. The first one takes out the word ‘not’ so that an emergency declaration is a legislative instrument. Currently it is not. This is a protection against potential abuse, albeit a small one. Amendment (7) adds in an extra component so that any declaration made can be extended to a specified cessation time. That means that any extension would also be disallowable.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (8), (9), (11) and (12) from sheet 5095 together:

(8)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 28), at the end of subsection 80P(1), insert:

         ; and (f)   in the case of disclosure by one entity to another for the purpose of managing the emergency or disaster—the recipient is in a position to act on the information to manage the emergency or disaster.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (after line 17), after paragraph 80P(7)(c), insert:

           (ca)    sections 19 and 19A of the Census and Statistics Act 1905;

(11)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 8 and 9), omit “or a National Privacy Principle”.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 16), omit paragraph 80Q(2)(g).

If I understood Senator Ludwig’s earlier hints, he wants me to move amendments (10) and (13) separate from amendments (8), (9), (11) and (12). I foreshadow moving amendments (10) and (13) and will talk to them as well. These deal with issues of disclosure and destruction of documents. They are reasonably self-explanatory, but I will explain them anyway. These amendments insert a new requirement such that in the case of disclosure by one entity to another for the purpose of managing an emergency or disaster the recipient must be in a position to act on that information. That is an extra protection. It requires that the people who get the information be people who can actually do something related to the disaster with that information.

It also specifically inserts the relevant sections of the Census and Statistics Act into the designated secrecy provisions so that it is made clear that census data is added as data that maintains secrecy. That is probably a fairly minor point in one sense, but the Australian Bureau of Statistics did indicate concerns that without this protection the quality of census data could be affected because they rely very strongly on absolute legislative guarantees that people’s information when given in a census will not be used in any other way down the track. The ABS are very particular about always ensuring that, beyond any shadow of a doubt, census data will not be used for other purposes. So this amendment specifically responds to the concern that was expressed.

Amendment (10) seeks to put in a substitution to the existing clause 80Q(1)(b), which concerns a person committing an offence if they subsequently disclose personal information. This expands that somewhat to cover people who use the personal information for purposes unrelated to the emergency under the declaration or disclose that information. It tries to make it clear that, for people who get information, it still would be an offence for them to use it for purposes that clearly have nothing to do with the emergency at hand. We do not believe that that protection is provided for adequately in the bill.

Amendment (11) makes a slight amendment to ensure that disclosures are only allowed for permitted purposes. Amendment (12) removes the ability for disclosure by regulation. Amendment (13) deals with destruction of information. I am pleased to note that the Labor Party have indicated that this is an area that gives them concern also. As I understand it, it is linked to views that were raised during the Senate committee inquiry, so I presume it is not something totally out of the blue to the government. It relates to the destruction of information and, as stated in the wording, it requires that information obtained in response to an emergency declaration under these new provisions must be destroyed within one month of the declaration ceasing to have effect unless the person to whom the information relates consents to its retention. This is an attempt to deal with what I think was a legitimate question that was asked during the inquiry, which is what happens to information once the emergency or disaster has passed.

Existing national privacy principle 4.2 clearly states that an organisation must take reasonable steps to destroy or permanently de-identify personal information if it is no longer required for the purpose it was obtained for. The acting Victorian Privacy Commissioner recommended that this bill needed a mechanism to adequately deal with the ongoing handling of information when it no longer relates to the emergency at hand. So this amendment is aimed at ensuring that information is only divulged for the purpose of the emergency and that, if there is a need to retain information for a particular purpose well past the immediate time of the emergency, this should be the subject of a declaration to that effect. So it is very specific. Any further retention of information only occurs under specific instructions.