A little less conversation, a lot more privacy action needed

[Jahangir655]

Nearly four years after the Privacy Act review began, the Australian government has introduced a reform bill that falls short of delivering the fundamental changes needed to modernise the country’s privacy laws.

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus acknowledged in May that the existing privacy framework is “woefully outdated and unfit for the digital age,” and promised reforms to address these shortcomings. However, many critical updates remain absent from the proposed legislation.

To borrow from Elvis: “A little less conversation, a little more action, please.”

While the latest amendments, introduced to Parliament on September 12, include stricter penalties for the malicious release of personal data, stronger protections for children online, a direct right of action, and regulations on automated decision-making, key changes that affect marketing – such as the “fair and reasonable” test for consent –were left out.

These crucial reforms are now highly unlikely to be tabled before the next Federal election, extending uncertainty for businesses that rely on data-driven marketing practices.

Ongoing uncertainty and delays
One of the most anticipated aspects of the Privacy Act reforms is chile mobile phone numbers database the requirement that businesses prove their data practices are “fair and reasonable.”

Unlike other data protection laws, such as Europe’s GDPR, this test would apply even if a company has obtained consent from consumers.

Sarla Fernando, ADMA’s director of regulatory and advocacy, emphasises how this differs from other global privacy laws: “Consent doesn’t matter… The Australian Privacy Act reform is different to GDPR and even the US ones… [This is] something that hasn’t been seen around the world.”

However, with this part of the legislation delayed, businesses face a complex challenge.

Not only must they navigate current data privacy laws, but they also need to prepare for a more ambiguous future where the notion of “reasonable” data usage could become a legal battleground.

The ongoing uncertainty may delay budgeting and investment in new technologies or compliance initiatives that would have been essential under clearer regulatory guidelines.