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

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 5095 together:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 13 and 14), omit “Without limiting subsection (1), any of the following is a permitted purpose in relation to an emergency or disaster:”, substitute “A permitted purpose in relation to an emergency or disaster is limited to the following:”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 24 and 25), omit paragraph 80H(2)(c).

These amendments also go to the issue of permitted purposes and to some of the concerns that the definition of ‘permitted purpose’, as including the purpose that relates even directly to the Commonwealth’s response, is still potentially too broad. It opens up the potential for abuse of a person’s privacy by organisations and individuals that really only have a fairly tenuous connection to the disaster at hand.

The federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner, in their evidence, encouraged further tightening of the definition of ‘permitted purpose’. I think these amendments assist in enabling that to happen by specifically limiting the permitted purposes to what is detailed in the legislation. Currently the wording in proposed section 80H gives a list of ‘any of the following’ as a permitted purpose relating to an emergency or disaster, without limiting proposed subsection (1). I think that saying ‘without limiting’ does just that: it does not limit it sufficiently. Certainly the evidence from the Privacy Commissioner, as I understand it, would suggest that a bit more limiting might be desirable.

Amendment (3) omits proposed section 80H(2)(c), which includes a permitted purpose of assisting with law enforcement in relation to the emergency or disaster. This is in response to evidence given to the inquiry that suggested that this may also be too broad. The acting Victorian Privacy Commissioner commented that the bill relates to enforcing offences giving rise to the emergency or offences committed during the emergency and raised issues relating to who is doing the assisting with law enforcement. ‘Assisting’ could potentially allow any person or organisation not normally officially associated with law enforcement to be able to deal with the personal information.

We believe the law as it stands should remain subject to the current obligations and that there are already sufficient powers of investigation. The submission by the Attorney-General’s Department confirms that law enforcement agencies are already subject to privacy provisions. The Democrats do not believe there is a need to further expand that power or a need to have them included in this section. I also understand that the Australian Privacy Foundation argued that law enforcement and managing the disaster are not entirely consistent with helping individuals in the aftermath of the disaster—that is, the distinction between managing and dealing with a disaster with regard to chasing up information and law enforcement activities. There may seem to be an overlap, but I think there is also a distinction there.