Personal Information and Privacy

Chaney welcomed the exposure draft but criticised the three-year delay since the initial Privacy Act review. Chaney supported the fair and reasonable test but argued that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner requires greater resources to enforce the new standards effectively. Chaney raised concerns about political parties being exempt from privacy laws, citing instances where parties harvested personal data through postal voting processes. Chaney called for political parties to be subject to the same privacy obligations as other organisations.

Clutterham supported the reforms, drawing on her experience as a privacy officer to highlight the complexities of balancing privacy with national security. Clutterham emphasised the right to erasure for large digital platforms, defined by revenue or user thresholds, and the broader definition of personal information. Clutterham noted that the fair and reasonable test condenses previous compliance requirements, providing extra protections for employees who might otherwise face coercive consent demands. Clutterham commended the government for addressing the significant impact of these changes on Australians.

Rebello argued that privacy reform was overdue, noting that technologies like smart glasses had been available since 2023 without urgent regulatory examination. Rebello criticised the consultation period as insufficient, stating that less than three weeks was inadequate for stakeholders to assess the complex legislative package. Rebello expressed concern that the reforms would impose significant compliance costs and regulatory burdens on small businesses, which are already struggling with economic headwinds. Rebello called for the government to be transparent about who would bear the costs of implementation.

Ambihaipahar supported the motion, linking privacy protections to dignity and security in the digital age. Ambihaipahar highlighted local concerns regarding identity scams targeting vulnerable residents and described community education initiatives undertaken with police and banks. Ambihaipahar welcomed the introduction of IDLock through MyGov, which allows users to monitor and block the use of their identity documents. Ambihaipahar argued that the reforms, including the right to erasure and stronger consent standards, prevent businesses from exploiting personal data without permission.

Small affirmed support for strong privacy protections but criticised the government's consultation process as too brief for such a complex package. Small argued that small and family businesses are already facing record insolvencies and regulatory burdens, and should not bear the cost of compliance for issues driven by large technology platforms. Small called for the government to provide clear assessments of the likely costs and implementation requirements for all stakeholders. Small also expressed concern that the exposure draft lacked specific protections for wearable technologies like smart glasses.

Miller-Frost cited survey data showing high public concern over privacy and lack of control over personal data. Miller-Frost focused on the dual nature of smart glasses, acknowledging privacy risks while highlighting their potential as accessibility tools for people with vision impairments. Miller-Frost quoted the CEO of the Royal Society for the Blind, who described how AI-enabled glasses can assist with reading, navigation, and independent living. Miller-Frost commended the Attorney-General for consulting with the disability community to ensure the legislation appropriately addresses these accessibility benefits.

Pike acknowledged the importance of balancing innovation with privacy protection, noting constituent concerns about data breaches and identity theft. Pike criticised the short consultation period and the use of non-disclosure agreements, which he argued hindered meaningful engagement with business experts. Pike warned that small businesses in his electorate were struggling with confidence and complexity, and should not be burdened with compliance costs. Pike insisted that responsibility for data protection should lie with large platforms that commercialise personal information, rather than small businesses.