Posts

Optus Privacy Breach Still Before Court

,

During the December Senate Estimates, I asked Ms Carly Kind, the Privacy Commissioner, what action had been taken regarding the Optus privacy breach in 2022. She explained that the matter is currently before the Federal Court.

I then raised two complaints that have been ongoing for more than two years. Ms Kind advised that those questions would need to be taken on notice, as would my query about the expected timeframe for a response. She was clear and firm on one point: the Commission operates independently.

Finally, I put it to Minister Nita Green that many Australians simply cannot afford access to justice. For them, the only safeguard is government agencies doing their job properly—and that responsibility cannot be understated.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. I’ve got some simple questions on the data breach by Optus. Could you please confirm the current status of the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner’s investigation into the major Optus data breach that occurred in 2022?

Ms Kind: I might speak to that. In August of this year, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner filed civil penalties proceedings against Optus with respect to contraventions of APP 11 that we allege contributed to that breach in 2022. That matter is now before the Federal Court.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you explain the prolonged administrative inaction including the handling of complaints CP22/02004 and CP23/00456 that’s been going on for two years?

Ms Kind: I’m sorry, I don’t have those complaint numbers before me to cross-reference. Unless you’re able to provide me with more information, I will have to take any question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Take it on notice. I hear that you’ve taken the case to court. Could you provide a timeline for expected resolution and publication of the findings of your investigation?

Ms Kind: With respect to those matters that you’ve just referenced?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Ms Kind: I’m happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you provide an assurance that the OAIC’s regulatory powers will be exercised independently of civil proceedings?

Ms Kind: I’m very confident to provide that assurance with respect to all matters. We operate entirely independently and rigorously in every matter we take on.

Senator ROBERTS: Will the government commit to reviewing and strengthening data protection enforcement mechanisms, Minister? I’m very worried. Many Australians are worried; they’re marching in the
streets about it—the increased digitalisation. It just needs one hack, and there can be devastating consequences for so many people. I mentioned this so many times in the Senate, outside the Senate. We’ve got huge databases linking many, many people. It just needs one hack and it’s gone.

Senator Green: Senator, I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the government has committed to privacy reform. There’s a second stage of that being undertaken now. We’re committed to uplifting privacy laws because we
understand that they’re essential for Australia’s trust and confidence in the digital economy and digital services, as you raise.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m worried about data protection, though—not just privacy but data protection. What is the government doing about it? The consequences now will be devastating. The majority of hacks, I understand, are suffered by big tech platforms and government. Most of the problems are breaches of human oversight, undersight.

Senator Green: I understand what you’re saying, Senator. We passed laws in 2024 as a first tranche of privacy reforms through the Senate. We understand that the Australian Privacy Act is outdated and not fit for purpose for the digital age; that’s why we’re undertaking additional reforms. There will obviously be a process for that legislation to be brought to parliament to be considered and to go through committee processes, in which I’m sure you will participate. We’re undertaking that work at the moment.

Senator ROBERTS: When do you think we will see the first signs of—

Senator Green: The department might be able to give you more advice about that work.

Senator ROBERTS: People are worried about it; they’re terrified of it.

Senator Green: That’s why we’re doing something about it.

Ms Chidgey: I can say we’re working on that second tranche of privacy reform as a priority. Timing will ultimately be a matter for government. I can also say that the privacy reforms do have a data protection aspect to
them, and the Privacy Act contains within it requirements for securing personal information. I would also highlight that the government has a cybersecurity strategy that complements the privacy work.

Senator ROBERTS: Given that, as I understand, the majority of breaches are human error, it’s going to be hard to make a bulletproof performance against that. Is there any sign of increased penalties for deliberate
breaches or negligent breaches?

Ms Chidgey: There were some changes made in the last term of government around penalties for breaches and enforcement, and the Privacy Commissioner might want to say more about that. We’ll obviously look at
education that crosses both the digital and human error aspects.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. Is there any provision for increased access to justice for the people? At the moment so many people cannot afford to go to court. That’s just a fact.

Ms Chidgey: I think this is where the role of the Privacy Commissioner comes in; Ms Kind might want to say more about her role. But that is the role of the Privacy Commissioner—to assist in addressing data breaches.

Ms Kind: If I might add—and share your concerns and your urgency—one of the really positive reforms that was adopted by parliament last year in the tranche 1 reforms included the ability for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to seek orders from the court for compensation for individuals with respect to privacy breaches. We already have the power to issue or order compensation for our own decisions, but we can now also seek them from the Federal Court in civil penalties proceedings. And I think that goes to the concern you have about remedying privacy complaints for individual Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Fire Ant Bureaucrats Ignorant

,

During last week’s Senate Estimates, I questioned Minister Chisholm and Acting Secretary of the Department, Ms Justine Saunders, regarding the ongoing mismanagement of the Fire Ant Eradication Program in South East Queensland.

Despite them saying that the Department has been working closely with Queensland operatives, both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders claimed they were unaware of any issues within the program. They stated that they had seen no evidence of mismanagement by those on the ground in Queensland.

When asked directly about what might constitute a “reasonable excuse” for the program’s failings, they declined to comment—which would suggest that such a determination should be a matter for the courts.

In light of this, I am calling on anyone with evidence of mismanagement or misconduct by program officers to urgently send it to both Minister Chisholm and Ms Saunders.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Senator the Hon Anthony Chisholm

Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

PO Box 6100

Senate

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Email: senator.chisholm@aph.gov.au

Ms Justine Saunders

Acting Secretary

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

GPO Box 858

Canberra ACT 2601

Email: justine.saunders@aff.gov.au

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move onto fire and a broad overview of the federal government exercising to ensure the states are successful because we’re using federal funds in the National Fire Ant Eradication Program. 

Ms Sawczuk: We’ve been very closely monitoring the delivery of the program as the chair of the national management group, and also as a key party to all of the governance program and the technical committee. We have also been working with Queensland, and the program specifically, by providing compliance and enforcement officers some assistance around communication.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve been providing them to Queensland?  

Ms Sawczuk: Yes, we have.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are their duties? 

Ms Sawczuk: To provide, for example, assistance on a compliance and enforcement framework, noting that there were a number of detections of importance; having a look at the compliance and enforcement activities done around that; and also working with the program to assess the triggers and the risks, if any of them are being met as a result of the detections. We’re also working with them to strengthen communications. We’re looking at the messaging that is getting out, particularly some of the success stories but also some of the targeting of the right messages. And because we are the national management group committee chair, we’re providing some advice on governance and cost-sharing arrangements. We work very closely with them to monitor the program, given that there is a significant investment, but also given that we do have that national coordination role in the governance. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’d like to go with this. We do provide a lot of federal taxpayer money for this Queensland program—it’s largely Queensland. Is this government aware of the overreach and intimidating tactics being used by the states and of breaches of regulations on pesticides, particularly in South-East Queensland? I’m sad to say that they’re forcing their way into properties and causing fear and distress to landowners, upsetting women and terrifying crying children? Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No, we’re not.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s going on; that’s right. Since when is it okay for gates and fences to be broken down with a police presence, threatening those with reasonable excuses who withheld consent to strangers forcing their way onto properties with a view to unlawfully spreading poison when there is not a fire ant within cooee— this is in breach of pesticide regulations. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is exactly what happened recently at Beechmont and Laidley and other places, when property was damaged and officers behaved like criminals in a home invasion while trespassing on private land. The violence came from the officers, not the landowners. I’ve talked with the landowners. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: We’ve got no evidence to suggest unlawful conduct or misconduct by the program in undertaking the compliance activities.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I send you evidence?  

Ms Saunders: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: Sorry, can you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that a property owner may obstruct and refuse access to officers—that’s fire ant eradication program officers—if they have a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: To be honest, I don’t know the specifics of the legislation under which the program operates, in terms of the compliance enforcement. They’re state laws, and the question is better directed at the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Biosecurity Act says that they can have a reasonable excuse and then they cannot go onto the property.  

Ms Saunders: We’re not applying the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act in relation to this program.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, state.  

Ms Saunders: I’m not familiar with their legislation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you think it’s a reasonable excuse to obstruct when a resident has an illness such as asthma or other respiratory ailments confirmed by a medical certificate as likely to be made worse by exposure to toxic chemicals, particularly when being sprayed? 

 Ms Saunders: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on facts that I’m not familiar with and/or are the responsibility of a state jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals present represent a threat to domestic animals—dogs, cats, birds—if they are exposed to the toxic chemicals?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware of those circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals are not being administered according to the safety requirements under the permits issued by the APVMA?  

Senator Chisholm: Again, I’m not aware of any existence of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your truthfulness. It’s very helpful. I’m not trying to have a ‘gotcha’ moment. This is very serious in Queensland. Why is aerial application of pyriproxyfen occurring on a wide scale on areas where no fire ants have been identified, ever, when the permit number PER87728 clearly states by way of restraint: DO NOT apply as a preventative measure for Red Imported Fire Ant control. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Saunders: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse, Minister, to obstruct when the administering authority has already disastrously polluted a significant waterway in the Samford Valley—you’d be familiar with the beauty of that valley—near Brisbane, killing extensive native marine, reptile and insect species?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case, Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it a reasonable excuse to obstruct when the chemicals have already been shown to not discriminate between insects and have already wiped out thousands of native ants and native bees and their hives?  

Senator Chisholm: I’m not aware that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware. By the way, I’m not expecting you to be aware. Thank you.  

Ms Saunders: Also, nor do we have any evidence, Senator, that’s the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: No. I’ll get people to contact you about it. Where is the environmental safety research that has been done to establish the safety of humans and our native birds and small animals when poisoned insects form part of the food chain? Is there any?  

Ms Saunders: I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Who is responsible for determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse?  

Ms Saunders: That’s a state matter. You’d have to ask the state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Shouldn’t it be up to a court to decide this crucial question?  

Ms Saunders: Once again, that’s a matter for state government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and—what’s the other ‘f’?—Forestry step up to pay compensation to those affected by the misapplication of the fire ant eradication program in Queensland thanks to the use of federal funds? Are you responsible?  

Ms Saunders: I’ll repeat my comments. No, they are matters for the state.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your direct answers. I’ll get someone to contact you. 

/4 Comments/by

One Nation Pushes New Data Rights Bill to a Vote!

,

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 has finally come up for a vote after more than a year of efforts by One Nation to push it forward.

This legislation grants everyday Australians the right to know who is accessing their data, to refuse permission for its use, and to request its deletion.  The protections in this Bill will make it easier for individuals, class actions and regulators to take legal action against companies that abuse your data under the Digital ID Act.  One Nation supports the Bill, believing these protections are long overdue.

However, there are still significant gaps. For example, the Bill lacks provisions for auditing data companies to ensure they are handling data responsibly.  As it stands, the Bill depends on whistleblowers to come forward. One Nation remains committed to defending your right to live your life without big brother, intrusive government surveillance.

Transcript

It’s about time the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 came up for a vote. I wonder why it is that bills which take away rights, like the Digital ID Bill, are guillotined, debate denied, committee
processes rigged to produce the desired outcome and then rushed through the Senate in an eye blink yet bills that give people rights are held back for years. One Nation supports this bill, which should have been passed at the same time as the Digital ID Bill—a piece of legislation that relied on the protections provided in the consumer data rights bill.

This week the Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten MP, released plans for the government’s own digital ID, which he calls the Trust Exchange. I don’t want to rain on the minister’s parade, yet I’m compelled to state the obvious: the government does not have any trust to trade—although the use of the word ‘trade’ is significant, because it shows the government doesn’t understand what it’s doing. When you use a digital ID, the circumstances of its use are recorded. There is a data trail that holds rich information about the person being verified—about you.

The private intermediary who’s performing the data handling can retain a copy of that data for a specified period. Does anyone really think they will delete that data when the retention period ends? That data is worth billions of dollars on the data market. The Digital ID Bill provided no protection against illegal data retention. The consumer data right bill does provide some protections, and it includes an overarching statement of fairness and honesty that would make prosecution of big data for misbehaviour much easier.

The minister has announced, apparently proudly, that the government will keep on file a record of every digital ID transaction. Imagine being proud of that! Such a record will be triggered multiple times a day: on public transport, at the shops and, as the minister himself said, in the pub. Can you believe it? It will happen when entering public buildings, like this one; when signing contracts; when using an ATM; and, as announced this week, when accessing social media. As I foretold when the Morrison Liberal-National government introduced the Digital ID Bill, and again when the Albanese Labor-Greens government pushed it through the Senate with no debate—no debate at any stage—each of these uses for the digital ID is in active development. I thank the minister for his honesty in admitting that the government will retain each of these transactions in its myGovID master file.

The Trust Exchange QR code, which is to be branded ‘TEx’, is a massive technological undertaking. I do not trust that this government and our bureaucrats have the technical knowledge to pull this off. I have to wonder how Minister Shorten can pursue justice over the tragic robodebt data-matching horror show so aggressively and then turn around and repeat the same mistake with TEx. Mismatches will be the norm; they’ll be normal. Data outages such as we’ve seen in recent months will occur again and again and cause chaos again and again. Yet the government is intent on creating a centralised database of every citizen, accessible from every business in the country through intermediaries who inevitably will be large foreign companies that make their money selling data.

Here’s an example of what could and does go wrong. Do you remember when this Labor government demanded a myGov account was needed to register for a director ID? Remember that, Madam Acting Deputy President? It wasn’t so long ago. The process was outsourced to Accenture, which immediately treated the exercise as a dataharvesting opportunity, a windfall, and started demanding that applicants for a director ID also provide details of their bank accounts, superannuation accounts, Centrelink account, Medicare number, tax return, drivers licence number and passport number. Yet the only thing the enabling legislation allowed for was the tax file number—one thing, and Accenture harvested seven. One word from the government and big business did whatever they liked with the data of millions of Australians.

Accenture committed theft on a fraudulent basis. It was fraud. My office notified the government, and it stopped. There was no punishment, no punishment at all. What happened to that data? Was all that private information destroyed? I’ll bet it wasn’t. In fact, no, it wasn’t. This government actually paid the big data company millions of taxpayer dollars—your money, our money—to harvest data for their own commercial benefit, and they went against the law to do it. So excuse me if I don’t trust this new TEx system. It’s appropriately named, though: TEx will be a digital Wild West where the bad guys, big data, exploit the public for profit and power.

Earlier, when I said this wasn’t a trade, here’s why. For it to be a trade everyday Australians would get something out of it that we, the people, do not currently have. People already have a photo ID. They already have government issued identification sufficient to meet any request. The government does not need to know if a person went to the pub today. Do you know who does? Life, motor vehicle and insurance companies. Do you know who else?

Employers. They would love to know how often, where and what time of the day an employee goes to the pub. This is why the value of the data industry worldwide is expected to be worth trillions in the future. In reality, a bank does not trade in money; it trades in risk. Imagine the money they will make if they can entirely eliminate the risk from their books by knowing everything about their customers—everything all the time! Imagine how the government could use that data. The answer is provided in the UK prime minister Keir Starmer’s behaviour.

Right now he is rounding up people for wrong think and wrong speak. I spoke about that lesson in communism on Tuesday night.

This is the future, your future, under the Albanese Labor government or under the other uniparty wing, the Liberal-Nationals, who introduced the Digital ID Bill and introduced the misinformation and disinformation bill. Trust has been lost. Mr Albanese and his Labor government have lost the people’s trust, lost the people’s confidence, lost the people’s support. After the Morrison government grossly and dishonestly mismanaged COVID-19, Mr Dutton and his Liberal-National opposition have not yet earned people’s trust, confidence and support. We need a strong crossbench of true conservatives to stop Australia’s slide into poor governance. The election cannot come fast enough.

/5 Comments/by

Brisbane Rally: Say NO to Digital ID

,

I am strongly opposed to the Digital ID bill, which I see as a tool for authoritarian control that threatens our freedom and privacy. I believe this bill is part of a larger agenda aimed at identifying, controlling, and potentially punishing those who oppose government policies—a shift that feels like a return to feudalism and serfdom. Although initially presented as voluntary, the Digital ID is gradually becoming mandatory for everyday tasks, as more government departments require it for various services.

I’m deeply concerned that this system could lead to significant privacy violations, creating a live data file tracking people’s movements and activities that could easily be used to control and exploit citizens.

/by

Public Hearing | 9 Feb 2024: Digital ID Bill 2023

,

UNSW Allens Hub for Technology Law and Innovation

The UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation (‘UNSW Allens Hub’) is an independent community of scholars based at UNSW Sydney.

During the inquiry into the government’s Digital Identity Bill, I asked representatives from the UNSW Allens Hub about their submission, which included data from India where digital identity was originally supposed to be voluntary but has become mandatory, and has resulted in restrictions on citizens despite government guarantees at the outset.

Their position is that legislative frameworks and protections should exist to prevent overreach from both government and non governmental authorities. Safeguards should be put in place to protect citizens who are being provided with essential services via digital identity to combat the power creep that we saw with the Director’s ID.

What is becoming clear, and the cautionary tale from India bears this out, both governments and private companies are embracing, with equal enthusiasm, the application of digital identity for all as the most convenient system for their purposes. Yet, what does this mean for Australians’ privacy and data given the cyber-security failures we have already seen from government and the private sector?

Human Technology Institute

At the Digital Identity inquiry I spoke with representatives of the Human Technology Institute, an industry body that promotes human rights in the development, use, regulation and oversight of new technology. Their comments make it clear that there needs to be strengthened legislation to improve privacy and other human rights protections with regards to the government’s Digital ID.

The government’s Digital ID Bill is part of the triad of tyranny, which is currently being whisked with indecent speed through what should have been a more careful scrutinising and debating process.

Surely privacy and human rights were not going to be left out of the new “trusted” digital identity that the Albanese government is keen for us all to embrace?

Australian Banking Association

At the Digital Identity Inquiry in Canberra, I questioned the Australian Banking Association about how Australians who don’t want a digital ID would lead a normal life without one.

I also asked how internet outages would impact on people’s lives when they rely on a digital identity to access their money.

/by

Say NO to the Government’s tracing App

Prime Minister Morrison has spoken of the need for a tracking phone app, to help the government trace people who may have been infected with COVID-19.

The PM is refusing to rule out the app being made compulsory on your phones.

The privacy implications of this are frightening.

This app would create a record of your movements “in the real world” including everywhere you go, everyone you meet and how long you were in contact with each person.

One Nation opposes this measure and calls on Prime Minister Morrison to guarantee that should this app be rolled out it will never be made compulsory and if voluntarily installed by a user, will contain enforceable safety provisions.

Transcript

I just heard something very, very dangerous. Brian Carlton on Triple M, interviewed the Prime Minister. Pretty good interview, until around about the sixth minute to the ninth minute.

Three times, Brian Carlton asked the Prime Minister if he would make the app for tracing people on their phones with regard to the virus, compulsory. Three times, the Prime Minister refused to rule it out.

That’s not on! This is Australia. Secondly, what would be the penalty if someone refused to join the app? Would they be denied certain services? Would they be fined? In Singapore, where they already have the app, it’s voluntary.

Only 20% of people have taken it up. People are well and truly capable of making up their own damn mind about whether or not it’s needed. People are also remindful of Cambridge Analytica, data security and privacy issues.

Each of us should decide who looks over our shoulder into our lives, because as George Washington said, the first president of the United States, “Government is a fearful master and a dangerous servant.”

We have to watch them the whole time. Something about the human condition, give someone power and they want it all. We’re watching. Because this is an opportunity with this COVID virus, to run roughshod over people.

We’re gonna be watching to make sure that we have all of our freedoms and rights restored, once this is over.

/2 Comments/by