Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I will now sum up on behalf of the government the second reading debate on the Telecommunications Amendment (Integrated Public Number Database) Bill 2006. Privacy and the protection of people’s personal information has of course become a key issue of concern to the Australian community, and the government has well and truly listened. With the passage of this bill today, the government tightens access to personal information for the purposes of producing a telephone directory. The legislation is an important step forward in taking action against the unauthorised use of personal information which is provided by customers when they sign up for a telecommunications service and recorded in the Integrated Public Number Database, or IPND.

The bill introduces a definition of ‘public number directory’ into the act in order to prevent personal information held in the IPND being directly used for unauthorised purposes. Under the current provisions of the act, IPND data must not be directly combined with or appended to additional information before producing a public number directory. This has always been the case, and the legality or otherwise of current industry practices is not affected by the current bill.

The bill also gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority, or ACMA, a key gatekeeper role in deciding on applications for access to IPND information by public number directory producers and researchers. Currently the IPND gatekeeper is Telstra. The bill requires ACMA to establish a scheme for the granting of authorisations, permitting persons to use and disclose IPND information. This is a significant enforcement of privacy protections. To further enhance privacy protections, the bill requires ACMA to consult with the Privacy Commissioner and the Attorney-General’s Department on the development of the scheme. Existing and prospective IPND data users will be required to apply to ACMA for an authorisation to access the IPND. Telstra will only be permitted to disclose IPND data to persons holding such an authorisation.

As well as clarifying IPND access arrangements for public directory producers, the bill allows for limited access to IPND information for some specified social research purposes that are clearly in the public interest. But importantly the bill does not permit unlisted customer information, including silent number information, to be published in public number directories or used to conduct research. Criminal sanctions will apply for unauthorised secondary disclosure and use of IPND data, and for breaches of conditions of authorisations issued under the IPND scheme. The purpose of providing access to the IPND for the production of public number directories is to permit competition in the production of public number directories. Public number directory producers will continue to provide directory products in competition with Sensis and others, and the bill does not change that.

The government’s strategy in developing legislation has always been to ensure that we listen to the views of industry and the community. ACMA has undertaken exhaustive consultations on the issues addressed by this bill, and the government believe that the bill is a robust and effective response to the problem at hand.

I thank senators for their support of the bill. I listened carefully to Senator Stott Despoja’s suggestions and criticisms, and I am grateful for her overall support for this important piece of legislation. I probably have just a little bit of time to deal with her point about whether there are any unintended consequences or any anticompetitive consequences of this particular scheme. That is probably all I will be able to deal with today. In saying that, in no way do I intend to disparage or otherwise not deal appropriately with Senator Stott Despoja’s suggestions. Of course, where appropriate, the government continue to look at whether or not there is any way in which we can improve our responses through all of our legislation, and this bill is no exception. But this particular bill is not about Sensis; it is actually about the IPND.

Sensis as a telecommunications contractor is subject to the primary disclosure provisions in part 13 of the Telecommunications Act. Part 13 of the act includes criminal offences and penalties for unauthorised disclosure and use of personal information. The maximum penalty is two years imprisonment for an individual or a pecuniary penalty of $13,200 for an individual, or a pecuniary penalty of $66,000 for a body corporate. The bill does not alter the strong controls on Sensis under the act. For Sensis to disclose customer data legally, it must do so under an existing exemption under part 13 of the act. Sensis does not obtain directory information from the IPND; rather, it enters into commercial contracts directly with other carriers for the provision of this information. Other parties could, for example, both pre and post passage of the bill, seek to enter into similar arrangements should they wish to compete with Sensis. As such, the bill does not prevent businesses developing and marketing competing directory products using information sourced directly from carriers.

Further to Senator Stott Despoja’s point, I can inform the Senate that advice I have received from the ACCC is that it has received no evidence to support claims of anticompetitive conduct by Sensis in the provision of directory services. Moreover, the ACCC has powers under the Trade Practices Act to effectively deal with such behaviour should it occur in the future.

In conclusion, the government take the view that this bill is an appropriate and measured response that significantly improves the Telecommunications Act; it is obviously an improvement on the current arrangements. Once again I record my thanks to the Senate for their support for this bill on a non-controversial basis and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.