Forwarded From: Nelson Murilo <nelsonat_private> Originally From: Julian Assange <proffat_private> Australian House of Representatives Hansard for 1st April 1998 PRIVACY AMENDMENT BILL 1998 Mr WILLIAMS (Tangney--Attorney-General) (12.41 p.m.)--I propose to close the debate on the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998 and, in doing so, I would like to thank those members who contributed to it: the member for Banks (Mr Melham), the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton), the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne), the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) and, lastly, the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans). To some extent it has been an interesting debate, and it is obvious that members of this House have a keen interest, as does the community, in the subject of privacy protection. But to a large degree the debate has been irrelevant to the bill. The reason it is irrelevant to the bill is that most of the speakers, particularly from the opposition, have been addressing the second reading amendment moved by the member for Banks which does not address the bill but addresses what the bill does not do. This is, as I said, interesting, but it is not particularly helpful in considering the bill. In fact, I think only about two issues were raised in relation to the subject matter of the bill itself. Let me say at once that the government oppose the amending motion of the member for Banks and we propose to vote against it. I also want to comment again on the manner in which the opposition deals with bills in this House, and in particular bills in my portfolio. We have, yet again, the member for Banks coming in, unprepared to move amendments to the bill but prepared to foreshadow that the shadow minister in the Senate will move amendments. This is a continuing and constant insult to the House of Representatives. The member for Banks must accept responsibility for it, although the ultimate responsibility rests with the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus must be just about the laziest shadow minister that there ever has been. He is never prepared to state what the opposition position is on a bill. He is never prepared to allow amendments to be considered in this House. We do not even know until the very last minute what amendments Senator Bolkus proposes to portfolio bills in the Senate. I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) really ought to take a long hard look at the position of his shadow Attorney-General and just ask, `Is he doing anything?' He is certainly not assisting the member for Banks, as his representative, to do his proper job in this House. I repeat: it is a continuing insult to the House of Representatives that it is treated in this way by the opposition. The government is acting on privacy protection in the private sector as a whole. On 20 February, the Privacy Commissioner and I launched national principles for the fair handling of personal information. These principles were developed by the Privacy Commissioner through a process of intensive consultation with business, privacy, consumer and government representatives. The Privacy Commissioner will now continue her consultations to assist business to implement the principles and to work out means by which they may be enforced. In this way, the government believes that privacy protection in the private sector can be ensured without imposing heavy-handed regulation on business. I can add in this context that the privacy principles received the support of some 14 peak body organisations at the time of their release. Those bodies were largely involved in the consultations resulting in their development and they will be involved in the consultations relating to the development of implementation mechanisms. The government took the approach of seeking a self-regulatory regime for privacy protection in the private sector following extensive consultations with the private sector. The member for Banks has mentioned the release of the discussion paper in September. This resulted in a significant number of formal submissions, formal representations, and the submissions revealed concern about the cost implications for business of a heavy-handed regulatory approach. The government was committed in its election policy and continues to be committed to reducing the regulatory burden on business and particularly on small business. The government firmly believes that privacy protection can in fact be achieved in the private sector without imposing unnecessary legislative burdens on business. A number of speakers have referred to the European Union directive and have raised a spectre of alleged adverse trading consequences for business in Australia if that directive is not complied with. The government has had a number of discussions with European Commission officials about the directive. Although the directive refers to limitations on transfers of personal information to countries that do not have `adequate levels of policy protection', it is unclear what the precise, practical impact of the directive will be. The commission is at this stage still developing an approach to assessing adequacy. It should be noted that the EU directive contains a number of exceptions which will allow transfers of data to non-EU countries in certain circumstances, even if they are not considered to have adequate levels of privacy protection. In addition, an EU member country may authorise a transfer or set of transfers of personal information to a non-EU country that does not have an adequate level of privacy protection where there are adequate privacy safeguards in place under appropriate contractual clauses. The government believes that the national principles on fair handling of personal information which were released by the Privacy Commissioner on 20 February provide a good basis for Australian businesses which handle personal information to develop practices to ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected. The government is discussing the Privacy Commissioner's principles with EU officials in the course of its discussions about the EU directive. The government will of course continue to monitor the directive both domestically and internationally. It has been suggested by the member for Banks that the bill sets up a regime inconsistent with the principles laid down by the High Court in its decision in the Brandy case. This is incorrect and, regrettably, demonstrates a lack of understanding on the part of the member for Banks of the Brandy decision and of the mechanisms which would apply under this bill. The impact of the Brandy decision has been taken into account in the construction of the determination and enforcement regime. The opposition has also suggested that the privacy of unemployed persons is not respected by the government. I draw it to the attention of the opposition--and in particular the member for Batman--that this bill will apply to providers contracted by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs under the new employment services market. The member for Banks may in fact recall that it was a committee of which he was the chairman and I was a member when the ESRA scheme was introduced which saw that privacy principles were respected and the legislation was improved by the committee's determination. Unlike the then government, this government has already taken those principles into account. Since 1 January 1989 when it came into operation, the Privacy Act has required government agencies that hold information about individuals to deal with that information in accordance with a specific set of private standards. It has also provided a specific regime for dealing with breaches of those standards and monitoring compliance generally. The government is committed to ensuring that where its agencies contract for the delivery of services those same specific standards and that same compliance regime continue to apply. That is the purpose of the amendments proposed in the bill: to preserve the same protection that the personal information had when the government performed the service. The act will apply only to those organisations who choose to contract with government to provide services to government. This is very different from imposing privacy legislation on the private sector as a whole. The question of privacy laws for the private sector generally is a separate issue which should not be used by the opposition to delay passage of the Privacy Amendment Bill. The government knows that individual Australians want the parliament to deal with this legislation expeditiously, and the government expects the opposition to stop playing obstructive games with this important legislation. One matter I do want to mention specifically is the one raised at the end of his speech by the member for Bonython--the subject of encryption, or cryptography. The government is aware of and is acting in relation to cryptography. There has been established for some time a committee of the OECD in which Australia participates. In fact, a senior officer of my department chairs the committee. It has developed some principles which ensure the meeting of different objectives while using encryption. The member for Bonython expressly mentioned law enforcement. You could add to that security and intelligence. One of the principles expressly deals with that subject. The government has adopted as broad policy objectives the achievement of the principles determined by the OECD as a result of the work of the committee on which the deputy secretary of my department participates. So the member for Bonython can rest assured that the government is well aware of the issue and is acting on it. I repeat that the government will oppose the second reading amendment moved by the member for Banks and supports the bill as is. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Melham's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided.[12.57 p.m.] (Mr Deputy Speaker--Mr K.J. Andrews) Ayes 74 Noes 39 ---- Majority 35 ---- AYES Abbott, A. J. Anderson, J. D. Andrew, J. N. Anthony, L. J. Bailey, F. E. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R. Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C. Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R. Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M. Kemp, D. A. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.* Smith, A. C. Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J. Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W. Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G. Williams, D. R. NOES Albanese, A. Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A. NOES Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J. Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.* Hatton, M. Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Macklin, J. L. McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Willis, R. Wilton, G. S. Zammit, P. J. PAIRS Bishop, B. K. Smith, S. F. Fischer, T. A. Brereton, L. J. Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C. Smith, W. L. Martin, S. P. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Tanner, L. J. * denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. -o- Subscribe: mail majordomoat_private with "subscribe isn". Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated [www.repsec.com]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 13:01:49 PDT