Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I commence by tabling a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill. I will now just briefly address the amendments that have been moved by Senator Carr on behalf of the opposition. Amendment (1) on sheet 7725 will amend the new broad power to introduce a requirement that, when a minor or an incapable person is required to provide a personal identifier, it be done in circumstances affording reasonable privacy and taking particular care to treat the person with humanity and respect for human dignity. The government will not be supporting this amendment, and I will just outline to the chamber why. One of the primary aims of this bill is to facilitate the use of new and emerging biometric technologies to conduct quick and non-intrusive checks of identity in public—for example, using a hand-held device to conduct a verification check of a person at Australia's border. The requirement outlined in this particular amendment to afford reasonable privacy will actually have the effect of undermining the ability to efficiently conduct these checks at Australia's border and in other circumstances. The whole purpose of what we are doing with this bill is to ensure we conduct a very quick and a non-intrusive check of identities, most importantly, in public.

The other reason as to why the government will not be supporting this amendment is, as I have already stated in my summing-up speech, that the government itself is going to be moving an amendment in relation to this bill. The proposed government amendment will ensure that the face of the legislation makes it clear that all persons who are required to provide personal identifiers under the broad power are treated with humanity and respect for human dignity, whilst the amendment moved by Senator Carr on behalf of the opposition is limited to just minors and incapable persons. So our amendment is far broader than that put forward by the opposition.

The government will not be supporting amendment (2) on revised sheet 7725. The amendment amends the safeguards in relation to the collection of personal identifiers from minors or incapable persons under the separate power to require personal identifiers from immigration detainees. These safeguards, for those in immigration detention, are not proposed to be amended by this bill. The Migration Act will continue to provide that when collecting personal identifiers from immigration detainees who are minors or incapable persons under division 13AA a parent, guardian or independent person is required to be present. Division 13AA of the Migration Act will continue to provide that an immigration detainee can request an independent person to be present during an identification test and that the test be carried out by an authorised officer of the same sex. The government considers that these safeguards are adequate and that it is not necessary to provide for the presence of two independent persons of the same gender as the minor or incapable person.

Finally, the government will not be supporting amendment (4) on revised sheet 7725. The bill does not amend the existing legislative framework and processes regarding the use and disclosure of identifying information under the Migration Act. The government's view is that the framework is appropriate and robust, and the amendment is unnecessary. The department is committed to openness and transparency in regard to data breaches. In the event of the authorised disclosure of personal information, including personal identifiers, the department's usual practice is to consult with the Australian Privacy Commissioner in relation to the breach and comply with the recommendations of the Australian Privacy Commissioner about notifying affected individuals of the breach.

Where a breach of privacy that meets the threshold for harm has occurred, as per the Australian Privacy Commissioner's guidelines, the department reports all such breaches to the Australian Privacy Commissioner for advice and feedback and guidance where required. The threshold for harm is where that breach would pose risk of harm, personal, financial or emotional to the individual; or is of a significant nature given the volume of the data disclosed. Those are the reasons the government will not be supporting these amendments.