Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I am just wondering whether I win anything!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No prizes, Senator Ludlam!

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave for the same purpose as earlier, to amend general business notice of motion No. 1000, standing in my name for today. It relates to the proposed introduction of mandatory data breach notification laws.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the motion be amended in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Question agreed to.

At the risk of being a bit predictable, I seek leave to make a brief statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I will not detain the chamber for long. The Senate had begun to debate mandatory data breach notification under the previous government. I do not recall who had carriage of it, but the Labor government had introduced such a bill before the 2013 election and I understood that it actually had the support of all sides of the chamber.

When the government introduced its dramatically unpopular mandatory data retention laws last year it was a recommendation firstly of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and then it was a commitment of the Attorney-General, George Brandis, to introduce data breach notification laws. Senator Singh had a private senator's bill in this place that I think is midway through debate. All it means is that if an agency or an entity loses control of your private information you have a right to be told. What could be simpler than that?

Where is the bill? After stuffing around for more than two years we got an exposure draft late last year. Why is this not already law? Why does the government not simply get on with it?

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Senate had begun debate on mandatory data breach notification legislation prior to the 2013 election;

(ii) the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) committed to introduce data breach notification laws before the end of 2015 during the debate over the national data retention scheme;

(iii) the Attorney-General again committed to introduce such laws to the parliament before the end of 2015 in an answer to a question without notice on 13 October 2015;

(iv) contrary to these commitments, the bill has not been introduced; and

(b) calls on the government to make a statement to the Senate on 3 February 2016 explaining why such legislation has not been introduced, and clarifying the government's intentions.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate. The government opposes Senator Ludlam's motion. The government has released an exposure draft to the Privacy Amendment (Notification of Serious Data Breaches) Bill 2015 to consult extensively with industry and other stakeholders on the proposed scheme, in particular with a view to minimising costs and regulatory impact. The draft legislation and explanatory memorandum regulation impact statement, along with the discussion paper, was released on 3 December last year, and submissions can be made until 4 March this year. The government will closely consider the views of stakeholders and introduce the bill into parliament in the first half of this year.

Strong privacy protections are a critical foundation for a vibrant digital economy. The proposed mandatory data breach notification scheme will give all Australians an added level of confidence in dealing with business and government online.

Question agreed to.