Press conference – Blue Room

Attorney-General’s portfolio Subjects: Second Tranche of Reforms to the Privacy Act; IDLock; Smart Glasses; One Nation; Oscar Jenkins; Harmful Online Content; FOI. ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Good afternoon. Today, the Albanese Government is taking the next step towards a stronger, more robust privacy framework, with the release of exposure draft legislation, together with a consultation paper on our second tranche of Privacy Act reforms.

Privacy is an essential part of our lives. It allows us to be who we are with dignity and without fear. However, we know that Australians are increasingly concerned about how their data is being collected, used, and shared.

Particularly as AI and other emerging technologies, such as smart glasses, become more accessible. People should not have to choose between protecting their privacy and participating in the digital economy. The Government's proposed reforms will help ensure they can do both and will further bring our privacy laws into the digital age.

In our first term, we delivered an ambitious, initial tranche of privacy reform, which introduced a statutory tort of serious invasions of privacy, criminalised doxxing, gave the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner tougher enforcement powers, and directed the creation of the Children's Online Privacy Code. Under our second tranche of reforms, the Government intends to introduce the following measures: a fair and reasonable test, so companies can no longer justify collecting more information than they need, or using it for purposes that Australians would never expect, a right to erasure, allowing individuals to request destroying personal information from large digital platforms like social media and search engines, stronger, more meaningful standards for consent to ensure Australians are making an informed choice about the information they share without hidden terms, or taking or leaving conditions and measures to stop businesses from trading in personal information without clear permission, so shopping habits, online interests, or location data cannot be bought and sold behind Australians' backs.

Importantly, the Government will also bolster the rules and expectations around how organisations respond to data breaches and manage cases of fraud and financial abuse. In addition to these measures, the Government has today also announced the introduction of IDLock, a new digital identity protection service designed to give Australians direct control over how their identity documents are used for verification.

The new service will be available securely through myGov next year and will enable Australians to block, unblock, and monitor the use of eligible identity documents through the Document Verification Service at any time. This will help Australians protect themselves from identity crime, scams, and the impacts of data breaches and all the harm occurs. These reforms help put Australians back in control of their personal information, and it sets a clear expectation.

If an organisation wants to use your data, it must do so fairly, transparently, and responsibly. Happy to take questions. JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, just on the smart glasses question.

Where are you at in terms of controls, are you considering something like an import ban? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, firstly, I think it's important to acknowledge the serious concerns that many Australians have about these devices. At the same time, note that this will not be the final iteration of a wearable information processing device or other such technology.

So, I think it's important to firstly acknowledge those concerns. As I cited in the Parliament only recently, research shows that some point of view material that has been uploaded, has actually shown some 60% of instances where you could classify that type of vision, and that type of content as being harassment. So that's a grave concern.

It's a concern, particularly for vulnerable people, like children, and women, and in particular situations where there may be violence or other forms of coercive control. So firstly, I want to acknowledge the very deep concerns. We are not specifically in this consultation, consulting on an import ban.

As I'm sure you'd appreciate, an import ban is a matter that would have consequences across Government, including across trade, foreign affairs, and other potential legal obligations that can apply internationally. That's not to say that I think that the people who have put this forward and a large number of Australians feel this, that they haven't done so in good faith.

I would say that we are consulting here in good faith about what we can achieve now, and the Privacy Commissioner, in response to my request for her to prioritise this, has been doing exactly that. I'm engaging directly as part of this process, with those researchers who have engaged in this area and know it very well from not only a privacy, but a technology sense.

I think what this also highlights, however, is the fact that we are having this conversation about these forms of wearables, which are not new, but the fact that they can be used in environments that can be dangerous to people, or otherwise, be seen as a breach of their privacy needs to be addressed. There's two areas where the reforms that we are announcing today will have impact.

The first is the fair and reasonable test. Now, depending on the type of device it is, say it's Meta, for example, a large neutral platform, that information will be contained somewhere and held by Meta and used by Meta for some purpose. They will be subject to the fair and reasonable test.

As a large digital platform, they will also be subject to the obligation for erasure. So, we can already highlight, from the reforms that we are proposing to take through, that those two aspects will apply. Now, as has been pointed out also, there are a number of laws, both at a state, but also at a local government level that are relevant here.

In some cases, for states, it's the surveillance devices legislation that could apply. But also, I commend counsellors who have already put forward restrictions on the use of smart devices in their facilities. As someone who's come from a local government background, this is an area where local government can have an impact almost immediately.

So, I note the calls, they are indeed valid, because I think that every decent-minded Australian would like to ensure that these devices are not being used for nefarious purposes, and the Government stands against that. I'd also just finally point out that disability advocates, and groups, people who are directly impacted in a positive way by this technology, also need to have their voices heard in this debate.

So, what we are seeking to do here is get the balance right, and ensure that we are well informed, but also, if you're looking to the future, because this is, of course, principles based and a technology neutral piece of legislation. JOURNALIST: If you're not considering a ban in relation to the measures today, aren't you in effect ruling out a ban on these long term?

Because a ban in one, two, three, years down the track, would be well and truly after the horse has bolted with these glasses. ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, let's be clear, the Privacy Act consultation does not go to issues of import restrictions. However, we are not ruling anything out in terms of other measures that we can take.

What I'm saying to you is that in the context of this review, we are looking specifically at the emergence of new technologies, and what the Privacy Act and existing laws can do, to assist with, let's be clear, we're talking about the harmful behaviours and regulating the harms. That's what governments seek to do. In terms of an import ban, as I said, we are not ruling anything out, but we are utilising what we have at our disposal right now, and I also welcome the comments from a number of advocates in this area who point out that this is an area where we should have privacy by design.

Safety by design, when it comes to platform and privacy by design when it comes to the utilisation of those technologies. JOURNALIST: How is it privacy by design to continue to allow people to buy these and covertly record on them while the Privacy Commissioner looks at this? Is that just basically putting this into limbo and essentially saying it's okay for people to do the wrong thing with these glasses?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, I disagree with the conclusion you've drawn there about whether the activities that have been undertaken by some nefarious individuals is okay. There is no decent minded Australian who would think that it's okay to be filming certain cohorts in certain settings. But what we need to be clear about here is what this consultation is focussed on.

This consultation is focussed on updating our privacy laws as they relate to personal information. They are looking at, specifically, the right to erasure and the fair and reasonableness test, as they apply to that information, which is collected. Now, we are working closely with the Privacy Commissioner, who is, as we speak, performing her role in terms of understanding where that information goes to, and in some cases, it is complex, because it is collecting personal information.

But again, we need to be clear, and I think it's important to be educative on this matter, that there are existing laws that go to these issues. There are existing laws even in our federal privacy sphere that go to this, including the tort for serious invasions of privacy. Now, whether or not that will incentivise someone to bring forward a case, that remains to be seen.

We have little jurisprudence on this at the moment, because it is a relatively new law, but I would completely dispute your characterisation over this as somehow closing the door on these nefarious individuals who are utilising this technology in a way that no reasonable Australian would consider to be acceptable. JOURNALIST: Sorry, not closing the door, but in the meantime, it's now up to what the police and the courts to try and protect people's privacy here.

The Government is just standing back? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I disagree with that entirely. The Government is not standing back, indeed today, as we have announced, we're bringing forward the toughest and most digital compliant privacy reforms in this generation.

You only have to look at the date of the Privacy Act today. The date is 1988, the Privacy Act. It has only been 25 years that it's applied to the private sector, and when you look at the rise of the digital platforms and the rise of people's concern about privacy, it is a 25-year trajectory. 25 years ago, everyone in this room, including myself, handed over our personal information to a large digital platform to obtain a free email address, and everyone else has been making money off our personal information except for us.

This is the moment for Governments and for civil society to step up, to not only be educative, but also to realise that this is an opportunity to address some of those matters that need to be addressed. JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, just on some of the other elements of this reform. There's an entire industry that's propped up, as you just kind of alluded to, that obtains and sells on people's data.

Banks do it, social media companies do it, your email does it, small businesses do it, big businesses do it. It is the intention of these reforms to effectively shut that down entirely, or will there still be opportunities where businesses can sell people's data on. What's the balance?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, you're right, the word balance is the important one here, and the fair and reasonable test, as you will see in the consultation paper, which will go live this afternoon, seeks to strike that balance. Fair and reasonable is given its ordinary meaning in different circumstances. So, for example, if you sign up to a subscription service for a streaming platform, for example, would you reasonably expect that you would then receive marketing information from one of the owners of those platforms for a hard copy financial newspaper?

That is the kind of fair, reasonable test that we're talking about here. This is a good faith consultation, we are opening this up and it's also the product of, you know, more than a year dealing with this second tranche and engaging with experts, civil society, and with business, and now opening up this draft legislation and the consultation paper, which will be open for 3 weeks, for the community to have their say about these issues, will help inform what that scope is with fair and reasonable.

JOURNALIST: What about location services? At the moment, say, I go near a McDonald's, my Instagram knows I'm near a McDonald's, and we'll start targeting ads at that. Will that be acceptable under these changes?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, again, we're opening up consultation here, but I think on a fair and reasonableness test, depending on how that personal information was obtained in the first place, and then the extent to which that geolocation data is made available, that would depend on the circumstances, but I will say on this point, we will also have an important role, and this is something that business has specifically asked for, for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to have guidance on these matters.

That came out consistently in the engagement that I've had with them, the need to have guidance, and so we are tasking both the Privacy Commissioner and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, do you think One Nation is dangerous? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think One Nation is a party that does not represent mainstream Australia.

JOURNALIST: Is it dangerous? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think some of One Nation's elements, particularly where they have been recruiting or otherwise giving a platform to extremist views, including neo-Nazi views, that is dangerous. I think it is also dangerous, at a time when social cohesion has never been more important, to trade on the politics of division.

I also think it's dangerous, when people who purport to be leaders in our community, deliberately go out with inflammatory language that seeks to divide us, but I will say this also about One Nation, the people of Secret Harbour made their voices heard over the weekend, now, it is up to that newly elected member to do what every other democratically elected member of any Parliament in Australia needs to do, and that is deliver.

That is not only problem identification, but it is delivery for the people who elected them. JOURNALIST: The Australian prisoner, Oscar Jenkins, has given some comments in the past few days. We've also seen Russian nationals arrested in Australia.

Would the Commonwealth consider any kind of prisoner swap to see Oscar Jenkins returned? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, that would require engagement with our Foreign Minister and a number of other diplomatic channels, which I'm not in a position to answer at this stage. JOURNALIST: How do you see this, if at all, interacting with the laws of foreign other countries, for example, China is able to compel data from Chinese-owned companies, and given this rise in Chinese EVs, for example, how would Australians using those kinds of new cars being protected under these privacy?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, again, any business that's operating in Australia needs to comply with Australian law, and you mentioned the issue of connected cars, similar to dash cams, these have been collecting information sometimes on a continuous basis, so the issues that we're facing in terms of the quantity of data collected, the scale, but also the scope and the timing of it, is not new.

What we are seeking to do here is address where and how that information is collected, whether that's been done in a fair and reasonable way, how that is disclosed and how that can be erased. JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, earlier you mentioned working with vulnerable communities, and we've seen many increases of scams and identity theft, specifically targeting migrant communities.

How will you make sure these protections reach these groups, where language and literacy barriers are potentially a factor? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It's an excellent point, and even in one's own communities, there was a time when you would think that scams were only the province of people who might be elderly and not digitally literate. We know that scams are so much more effective these days, that the scammers have so much scope, that this is something that does impact the entire community.

So, I think that this is an area where two things need to occur. Firstly, there's the educative function of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner, and that will be very important in terms of getting those messages out to vulnerable communities, including CALD communities, but I think it's also incumbent on Government to utilise the methods that we already have before us, including our excellent public broadcasters like the SBS.

JOURNALIST: Just on data collection and how a company will use that, how would you enforce that with the companies themselves? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, in two ways. Firstly, we already have, as we've seen in the Online Safety Act, and the penalties that we are proposing are actually modelled on those in the Online Safety Act for the right to erasure and the fair and reasonable test as applies to digital platforms and search engines.

So again, they would be undertaken by our agencies. But I would just stress this, any company doing business in Australia is required to comply with Australian law, and we will seek to have the full extent of the law applied in every way we have. JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, Minister Tanya Plibersek indicated that she would support a ban on the depiction of strangulation in porn.

Is that something you would consider? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Minister Plibersek and I have been working very closely together over the past months on the second action plan that we both have joint responsibility for both in the child and family violence space. We are closely considering what is going on in terms of legal developments in other countries, but we are also very mindful from the information that we've gathered through advocates and lived-experienced survivors in these consultations that we've had, that the prevalence of the digital sphere has been an area that comes up time and time again in terms of how it is encouraging and normalising certain behaviours that are harmful.

So, both Minister Plibersek and I, together with Minister Wells will continue working together in a very joined up way across Government on what kind of measures we need here, but I can certainly say to you that this is being considered in the scope of the Digital Duty of Care, and it is one that I think every right-minded Australian is concerned about and wants to see action.

JOURNALIST: On smart glasses, the argument for having an import ban is to wait until the privacy laws catch up. That's what people are looking for. I'm just still not clear from what you said today, do you think current privacy laws are strong enough to protect people who are being filmed by smart glasses without their permission?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, we think the laws need to be strengthened in this area, this, as I said, is a good faith consultation on other ways in which laws of different levels interact, but you mentioned a year, I would be hoping that with the introduction of the Bill this year, that we have the broad support across the Parliament to have this passed sooner than a year.

So, I would anticipate that we would be in a position to have these laws in place well before a year's time. I encourage the entire Parliament to get behind these changes, as I said, this is a good faith consultation. We do expect this will be considered by an appropriate parliamentary committee, but I see no reason why we couldn't have these laws in place within a year.

JOURNALIST: Would you like to see other councils, follow Brisbane Council's lead, and ban them at public pools? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I would like other councils to consider what kind of public areas they have in their sphere of influence where this could apply. There's a lot of councils that run childcare centres, for example, I know that the education minister has put in place bans on the use of mobile phones in childcare centres, and I'm engaging closely with him on other forms of wearable information processing devices that could also potentially fall within that ban as well.

I think that this is the excellent opportunity for local government to consider those public areas that they have and also an opportunity for businesses to consider their area as well, because they can set the terms and conditions of entry into their premises and use of their facilities. JOURNALIST: Minister, obviously, this legislation is being put before a consultation at the moment, but can you give a sense of what the government's preferred level of penalty would be when it comes to the right to erasure laws if they're not complied with, considering how significant the funds are from selling off this data?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, breaches of the Privacy Act can be in the tens of millions of dollars, and they can also be calculated as a percentage of revenues or turnovers as well. So, we would envisage that there would be high penalties here. This is a Government that takes very seriously the incentivising nature of having high penalties and as a government, we are not shy in terms of having high penalties, because what we are talking about here is damage to people, which can often be as a result of scams as well.

So, I'm certainly not averse to having high penalties in this area. JOURNALIST: Are you sure you can impose on the multinational companies, and when it comes to AI models, can you really stop AI models from keeping people's data? Can you really impose right to erasure on AI models?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, you only have to look at the fact that this operates now in the EU. So large digital platforms already are required to do this in the EU, they know how to do this, so again, we will take every step that is necessary, as a government, to enforce our laws on businesses who operate in Australia. JOURNALIST: Will the Government bring back its FOI reforms and when?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We are closely considering the feedback that's been considered on that, but we should make it clear, there is not one stakeholder who says that our FOI regime is fit for purpose. We continue to look forward to cooperation across Government to get that done. JOURNALIST: With the erasure of data, would it be incumbent on the individual to make an application for the erasure of their data to every single platform that they access, and would it be possible for them to carve back a certain amount of data for services they're currently using or is it only for things that they're no longer using?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, again, these are matters that we have put forward, as you'll see in the consultation paper. But one principle I should stress here is that it is incumbent on the digital platform to perform that task. We don't envisage that this would be for an Australian to make a request to the Privacy Commissioner, for example, it would be a request directly to the largest digital platform or search engine.

JOURNALIST: But the individual would be applying to every single platform that they're a member of, there wouldn't be some sort of, you know, larger platform, like getting your name off the no call list, for example? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We're not proposing a centralised register, you're talking about, for example, the 'do not call' register. That's not the model akin to what we're looking at, we're looking at having individuals approach digital platforms and search engines.

JOURNALIST: When you talked about businesses banning smart glasses, can you run through what kind of businesses do you have in mind? Is that like shopping centres? ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Think, for example, of shopping centres or retail department stores with change rooms, for example.

Businesses know that good privacy is good business. I would expect that depending on the nature of the business, if they consider that this is an area where their clientele, where their patrons, would be best served by having these kinds of devices banned, then that would be a matter for them to implement, would be up to them right now to do that. JOURNALIST: Doesn't that put the burden on the business then having to have expanded security, renew their policies when it could just be blocking entry by not allowing them into the country in the first place?

ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, the counterfactual for that is you've got a Government deciding on one particular form of technology at this point in time, and as I have explained, this is not the final piece of wearable information processing technology that will be developed. It is the notion also, I say with all due respect to those, and again, I acknowledge that there are deep concerns about this, but the notion that this is somehow a quick and uncomplex mechanism to impose an import ban is not correct.

We need to look at, right now, we need to look at the harms that are being caused, we need to direct ourselves to the harms and be proportionate in that response, however, we also need to be aware that irrespective of what we might have at Commonwealth level, in a privacy sense, at a state level, in terms of surveillance laws, local government level, and at a business and civil society level, governments will continue to monitor this.

Every government around the world, every regulator is dealing with this. I'll make this final point: this is not a set and forget exercise. We understand that technologies will continue to emerge.

We are not in the business of playing whack-a-mole when it comes to the emergence of technologies, and we know that Australians have always been earlier adopters, these kinds of technologies can have legitimate uses. We need to address those harms, and this is an opportune way of dealing with some of those matters with privacy reforms to make them fit for the digital age right now.