Executive Summary and Recommendations

Privacy in the Private Sector

Executive Summary and Recommendations

Chapter 1

On 14 May 1998, the Senate referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee an inquiry into privacy protection in Australia, linked to consideration of the measures contained in the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998, which extends the operation of the Privacy Act 1988 to businesses performing work outsourced by the Commonwealth. The terms of reference include a wider consideration of existing privacy protection in Australia's private sector, as well as other issues including Australia's international obligations and the need for legislative backing for any privacy protection.

Chapter 2

After examining the issue of privacy in the private sector, the Committee concludes that there is strong evidence of widespread community concern over the protection of privacy rights generally, fuelled by the rapid advances in technology, particularly in the areas of electronic commerce and the Internet. The Committee notes that these concerns are reflected in international and national debates over privacy protection, leading to the emergence of an expanding body of law and standards that will inevitably have implications for the direction taken by the Commonwealth Parliament in the matter of regulating for the protection of privacy in the private sector.

Chapter 3

In Chapter 3, the Committee concludes that an adequate privacy protection scheme to cover the private sector must have several key characteristics, which must include certain core information protection principles, as well as an enforcement system. Together, these must have the effect of creating a system of enforceable rights and obligations that can provide minimum guarantees of an individual's privacy rights.

The detail and content of the privacy protection principles should be guided by existing international benchmarks and best practice standards, such as the EU Directive on Data protection. Secondly, the Committee recognises a considerable risk that a failure to ensure sufficiently high standards could damage Australia's trade interests by inhibiting the ability of trade partners to exchange information and by limiting the confidence of the Australian public in emerging technologies.

The Committee also considers that while industry has legitimate concerns about regulation, it is important to clearly establish that the needs of industry must not be permitted to override individuals' rights to privacy.

Recommendation 1 (Paragraph 3.22)

The Committee therefore recommends that in the development of more effective privacy legislation, as is recommended later in this report, consideration be given to the relationship between existing laws regulating employer records and proposed legislation which would seek to cover employee data.

Recommendation 2 (Paragraph 3.95)

The Committee therefore recommends that the criteria outlined in this chapter be used as a baseline for the development and evaluation of a privacy regime applying to the private sector.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 examines the extent of the privacy protection currently provided by existing legislation and common law actions, and measured against the criteria established in Chapter 3, the Committee concludes that such protections are inadequate.

Overall, Australia's existing legal frameworks are only partial in their coverage and vary widely across jurisdictions. Access to remedies and enforcement is uncertain. Moreover, the current arrangements fail to meet the needs of the private sector or to protect the rights of consumers.

The Committee also notes that existing inadequacies at the federal level are already prompting legislative responses at a state and territory level, increasing the likelihood that an already fragmented national approach will become worse. The Committee considers that by avoiding consistent, national, legislation Australia may end up with an inconsistent patchwork system with varying requirement across jurisdictions.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 examines the extent of privacy protection provided by existing self regulatory systems, and draws a number of conclusions.

The Committee notes that many companies and organisations have adopted a responsible approach to the protection of privacy. However, the Committee remains concerned at what is essentially a piecemeal adoption of privacy protection measures in the private sector, and considers that coverage is far from uniform. Of equal concern is the slow progress achieved in bringing into force comprehensive enforcement measures to give effect to the National Principles [1]. The Committee sees little evidence of real progress and limited prospect for such progress in the near future.

For these reasons the Committee concludes that at this stage private sector self-regulatory systems do not, of themselves, provide an adequate system for privacy protection in Australia. Without an adequate enforcement mechanism the National Principles lack force and cannot provide the basis for a national privacy scheme.

In general, the Committee concluded that, with reference to the criteria developed in Chapter 3, self-regulation fails to deliver adequate privacy protection. Self-regulation:

The evidence provided to the Committee indicated clearly that unless the private sector faces the credible possibility of coercive intervention by government, adequate standards will not be adopted or enforced.

In examining the adequacy of the National Principles in meeting the requirements of the European Union (EU) Directive on Data Protection, the Committee found that the EU Directive places major limits on the processing of material and provides substantially greater protection of the data collected and processed. By placing its principles within a broad framework of human rights and noting the right to privacy, the Directive links its philosophy to general human rights issues.

The National Principles, in comparison, appear a very weak and piecemeal approach to the issue of collection and protection of data. They do not deal with substantive issues such as the rights of the data subject; they give unequivocal preference to the wants of certain industries; they provide very little obvious limitation on the discretion of certain parties; and they provide virtually no direction as to the way in which even the minimal protections provided would be safeguarded. They do not locate privacy among human rights, and express limited concern for the rights of the individual as opposed to the needs of the business community.

Recommendation 3 (Paragraph 5.144 )

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth does not rely on self-regulatory schemes.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 examines the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998 and its adequacy in addressing the lack of privacy protection identified in previous chapters. The Committee concludes that the objectives of the bill are inadequate to meet the wider need for privacy protection over the private sector in Australia. However, the Committee agrees that there is an urgent need to counteract the erosion of the coverage of the Privacy Act caused by the widespread contracting out of government services, and to this extent supports the objectives of the bill.

Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned that the desire to minimise the application of the bill has led to a series of rules and exclusions, which would have the effect of increasing the complexity of Australia's privacy laws. The Committee considers this ironic, considering industry's pleas for simplified, uniform and consistent privacy laws.

The Committee considers that many of the above issues serve to reinforce the practicality of adopting uniform national legislation covering both private and public sectors.

Recommendation 4 (Paragraph 6.52)

The Committee recommends the government introduce legislation to provide privacy protection uniformly covering the public, private and the charitable and `not for profit' sectors. The coverage of the bill should be as broad as possible and minimise the extent of any exemptions.

Recommendation 5 (Paragraph 6.60)

The Committee recommends that, were the proposed legislation to be agreed to, there be a serious re-evaluation undertaken of the proposed workload of the Privacy Commission and the resource implications of the proposed legislation.

Recommendation 6 (Paragraph 6.63)

The Committee questions the use of the Information Privacy Principles in preference to the National Principles. However, as the Committee has noted serious deficiencies in the National Principles, it recommends that they be carefully revised, and should not be adopted without modification which takes into account the issues raised by expert commentators, and in light of the guiding principles of the European Directive. Until such revision has occurred, the National Principles would not be an appropriate base for legislation.

Recommendation 7 (Paragraph 6.71)

The Committee also examined the relationship between the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, and recommends the government further examine the issue so as to ensure the most effective solution.

Chapter 7

Chapter 7 introduces the Committee's preferred solution for addressing the need for privacy protection in the private sector. The co-regulatory model suggested is based on a model developed by the Attorney-General's Department, comprising privacy protection based on flexible industry codes developed in co-operation with the Privacy Commissioner, backed by a legislative scheme. Of particular interest to the Committee are the responses received to the discussion paper, Privacy Protection in the Private Sector (1996) which reveal an overwhelming support within industry for the proposed co-regulatory model.

Recommendation 8 (Paragraph 7.116)

For this reason, the Committee recommends that the creation of a co-regulatory model incorporate a comprehensive review of the Privacy Act, creating a single universally applicable source of law.

Chapter 8

Chapter 8 examines the costs of the proposed co-regulatory model, and the extent of the Commonwealth's constitutional powers to enact comprehensive privacy legislation covering the private sector in Australia.

The Committee recognises that in developing a privacy protection system, it is important to minimise the regulatory burden and compliance costs to industry. Nevertheless, the Committee concludes that such costs will depend upon the exact nature of the system in question, and it cannot be assumed that a legislative system will necessarily entail high compliance costs.

Given the evidence of low costs associated with the co-regulatory model adopted in New Zealand, developed with the minimisation of compliance costs as an explicit objective, the Committee considers that a similar system in Australia would not impose unacceptably high costs.

Recommendation 9 (Paragraph 8.24)

Recognising the importance of keeping costs to a minimum, the Committee recommends that any proposal for new legislation, once finalised, be subject to a specific costing analysis to ensure that costs are not unreasonable in the context of the social objectives of the legislation.

Recommendation 10 (Paragraph 8.44)

The Committee recommends that the government investigate mechanisms to achieve a cooperative legislative approach with the State and Territory parliaments that could ensure effective legislation.

Recommendation 11 (Paragraph 8.48)

The Committee strongly recommends the reconsideration of a co-regulatory scheme underpinned by national uniform privacy legislation applicable across all sectors. The scheme which was proposed by the Attorney-General's Department in their discussion paper provided what the Committee views as a practical and workable model, and one which received an overwhelmingly positive response from all sectors.

In relation to constitutional issues, the Committee concludes that there is a wide constitutional basis for the Commonwealth Parliament to enact comprehensive privacy legislation, although there may be some doubt as to the complete coverage of such legislation across all areas.

Footnotes

[1] All references are to the first set of principles. The Committee notes the principles were revised in January 1999.