AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Privacy Law and Policy Reporter

Privacy Law and Policy Reporter (PLPR)
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Privacy Law and Policy Reporter >> 2002 >> [2002] PrivLawPRpr 6

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Waters, Nigel --- "Private parts" [2002] PrivLawPRpr 6; (2002) 8(8) Privacy Law and Policy Reporter 167

Private parts

Compiled by Nigel Waters

AUSTRAC Director moves on

Elizabeth Montano, Director of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) the financial reports agency), for the last six years, has decided to leave the position in the New Year. Ms Montano, who was recruited from the private sector, has been open to hearing privacy and civil liberties concerns during her tenure, welcoming the input from the Privacy Advisory Committee established by her predecessor, Bill Coad. It is to be hoped that her successor — yet to be announced, will be equally balanced in the administration of an inherently highly intrusive regime of financial monitoring.

More time for Genetic Privacy Inquiry

The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and the Australian Health Ethics Committee have announced that the reporting deadline for the National Inquiry into the Protection of Human Genetic Information has been extended by nine months to March 2003. The Inquiry will now accept submissions on its issues paper (published in October 2001) until 18 March 2002 (the submission deadline was originally 14 January 2002).

For further information see <> or email <>.

Source: ALRC/NHMRC media release 30 January 2002.

New resource for online privacy rights

In the US, a diverse coalition of consumer rights groups has launched a website designed to educate net users about ways to control their personal information online. The new website <> offers tips for understanding the fundamentals of online privacy — such as how to read a privacy policy — as well as advice on using more sophisticated privacy tools, including anonymous remailers and encryption. The site was launched by the Center for Democracy and Technology with the support of more than a half dozen other privacy and consumer rights organisations, many of whom endorse fairly divergent views on Congress’ role in protecting consumer privacy online. According to Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause (one of the site’s sponsors), ‘Online privacy is clearly one of the emerging civil rights issues with implications for business, for our politics, and government, and there needs to be a voice for empowering citizens in this debate ... While legislation may be needed, we know that at a minimum, we can help by making this information available.’

Source: Washington Post at <www.Washtech.Com/News/Regulation/14248-1.html>.

Police powers for Commonwealth guards — another slippery slope?

The Government has announced that the Australian Protective Services (APS) is to become an operating division of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The APS is responsible for guarding Commonwealth property, and for counter-terrorism’s first response at major Australian airports. Legislation will be required, although the administrative change is planned from 1 July 2002.

This seemingly innocuous change may have important privacy implications if the APS with its 800 personnel automatically acquire access to the same range of information and powers as the AFP. Both the training levels and the accountability of APS staff are presumably different from AFP agents, and it may not be desirable nor appropriate to give them the same extensive ability to intrude into individuals’ privacy as the Commonwealth police officers currently enjoy. These include the authority to seek warrants for searches and telephone intercepts, and access to financial transaction information held by AUSTRAC.

The media release also mentions the intention to continue to allow private security firms to compete against the APS for some contracts. If the APS have increased powers and levels of access to information as a result of becoming part of the AFP, pressure may grow for the private firms to be given similar powers and access, on the argument of a ‘level playing field’. A situation where some of the AFP’s functions are commercially contestable may well be undesirable for other reasons.

Questions need to be asked urgently about these issues. As a starting point, the Government should provide comparative information about APS and AFP powers, access to information and accountability.

Source: Minister for Justice and Customs Media Release 14 February 2002.

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback