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

by leave—I move amendments (10) and (13), in effect in a foreshadowed way, together:

(10)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 32 and 33), omit paragraph 80Q(1)(b), substitute:

             (b)    the first person subsequently:

                   (i)    uses the information for purposes unrelated to the emergency declared under section 80J or 80K; or

                  (ii)    discloses the personal information; and

(13)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (after line 23), after section 80Q, insert:

80QA Destruction of information

Information obtained in response to an emergency declaration under section 80J or 80K must be destroyed within one month after the declaration ceases to have effect, unless the person to whom the information relates consents to its retention.

                   (i)    uses the information for purposes unrelated to the emergency declared under section 80J or 80K; or

                  (ii)    discloses the personal information; and

As I have said, issues relating to the destruction of information are an important part of ensuring people’s confidence, even in the modified privacy regime, and I do not think these amendments would harm the effectiveness of the legislation. I take this chance also to note the government’s commitment regarding Bureau of Statistics and census material. Personally, I cannot see why it would not be more efficient just to put it in the act in order to make it clear rather than to leave it to government commitment to enforce in some way down the track, but I suppose the key part is ensuring that the outcome occurs. I am pleased to hear that, presuming the commitment is followed through with—and I am sure it will be—that is what will happen.

The only other point I would emphasise in speaking specifically to these amendments is that they are based on views that were put forward in the Senate committee process. The New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, for example, specifically raised concerns regarding clause 80Q. In their view, that clause did not appear to prevent the use of information for an unrelated purpose and they suggested that it be made clearer—and I think the Democrat amendment does that.

When talking about privacy protections, it is important to ensure that public confidence applies. As I said at the start of my remarks on the second reading, it is fully understandable that people would think, ‘There is a disaster on; we don’t want all this annoying privacy red tape to get in the way of the immediate job at hand regarding flows of information.’ That is understandable. If the existing privacy laws are too restrictive to allow that to happen, the Democrats, as I have stated, support modifying them, but only in as much as is necessary. The other problem is that, if you open them up too widely—I think we need to recognise this also—you can have the same problem occurring for the reverse reasons: people think that there are inadequate protections guarding against their information being used by absolutely anybody for any unrelated purpose purely because the government says, ‘This is a disaster.’ It may mean that they are less likely to provide that information themselves and you then run into the same problem that other people cannot get access to that information and you do not get the free flow of it that is needed to adequately respond.

This is not just a position that the Democrats are taking because of a purist obsession with privacy—we do have a strong commitment to privacy, as I have indicated—but also a matter of practicality. If we weaken the privacy laws too much, you can also put in place a natural reluctance for people to provide information, because they are not going to provide it if they think it will be misused. That is the concern we have. I think amendments (10) and (13) go particularly to those concerns—that the information will not be used for unrelated purposes or at least that there is a penalty in place if it is used for unrelated purposes and also that it is destroyed once it is no longer necessary. They are valuable protections that would actually enhance the stated objective of these changes, which I think we all support.

I do not mean to imply that this whole legislation is some devious conspiracy by the government and that it has some hidden agenda to immediately dive forward and misuse privacy provisions. It is simply not the government taking the opportunity to give more power and more flexibility to itself to do what it feels like in certain circumstances. That is why you have legislative protections in the first place. It is always a balance. Even with the couple of amendments that have been made, I think this legislation still has the balance somewhat out of whack.