Darren Churchill: Australian Democrats Campaigns

DARREN CHURCHILL

Australian Democrats National President

Remove “Big Brother” clause from Privacy Laws, say Democrats

The existing blanket exclusion for political parties from privacy laws covering databases and the storage of personal information exposes citizens to intrusion, mistreatment and abuse, say the Australian Democrats.

“It’s time for all political parties to be brought into line by the removal of the undemocratic Section 7c of the Privacy Amendment Act 2000,” declared Australian Democrats National President and long-term privacy campaigner, Darren Churchill.

“The Democrats opposed the legislation when it was introduced and Natasha Stott Despoja subsequently introduced a Private Members Bill which was defeated by Liberal and Labor.

“The singular focus of the major parties is on marginal voters in marginal seats – a handful of people. While this is a logical campaign tactic, it makes a mockery of the high democratic principles we hold so dear.

“Exempting political parties and, by default, their allied political activity and organizations from universal privacy principles is a licence to create extensive and intrusive databases with no higher purpose than to sway democracy.

“Section 7c exempts Members of Parliament, contractors, subcontractors and volunteers of political parties from laws covering the collection, storage and use of personal information for political purposes” explained Mr Churchill.

“This is not democracy in action, it is manipulation – it places political parties above other private organisations and is a total invasion of privacy. Our laws have not kept abreast of developments in computer technology”

“When people from the big parties come door-knocking, they know exactly the issues which can change your vote. Not only have they been profiling you, they can add in any privately commissioned poll you may have answered.

“The bloke at the door is not your friendly candidate; he is Big Brother Labor or Big Brother Liberal.”

“Further, these databases risk abuse by anyone the party may choose to give access. This state of affairs erases voter sovereignty.

“No sales representative has the right to a detailed collection of private personal information of potential customers, and nor should political parties.”

“The Australian Democrats have a long history of standing up for privacy issues. We opposed Hawke’s “Australia Card,” Howard’s “Access Card,” and more recently raised privacy concerns (which were echoed by the Privacy Commissioner) on the implementation of Unique Health-Care Identifiers. We opposed Section 7c when in the Senate in 2000, and we’re calling for its removal now.” Mr Churchill concluded.

Darren Churchill

National President, Australian Democrats

darren.churchill@democrats.org.au

Tel: 0412 196 473

DARREN CHURCHILL

ACT Democrats President

Media Release 1 July 2009:

Democrats raise privacy concerns over national e-health ID

The Australian Democrats have raised privacy concerns over the Unique Healthcare Identifier (UHI) programme being developed by the National E-Health Transition Authority. ACT Australian Democrats president and privacy campaigner, Darren Churchill has called on the federal government to release details of the Privacy Impact Assessments on the scheme.

The Democrats claim the UHI sounds reminiscent of the previous governments attempts to replace the Medicare Card with an Access Card (a defacto national ID card) and want to know details of the privacy issues involved.

“We’re already getting conflicting reports between the Human Services Minister and the health Minister over whether or not the Medicare Card will turn into a smart card or not. And the Privacy Impact Assessments remain a secret. This raises a number of concerns!” declared Mr Churchill

“The concerns the Australian Democrats have are:

· What guarantees are there that the individual has control over who sees their information?

· What guarantees are there that only the medical information a person authorises will be stored?

· What protections are there that only medical information will ever be stored?

· What rights to challenge personal information held in medical databases (accuracy and whether the person wants that information held at all) are put in place?

· How open, accountable transparent and available is a person’s right to know the information held about them?

· And is there a limit on how long information can be held?”

“It’s important that there is means for facilitating access to medical records and there needs to be a guarantee that it won’t become mandatory to present all medical details in order to access health care services or Medicare benefits.” Mr Churchill said.

“Even the best intended privacy legislation will not prevent future governments from increasing the coverage and uses of the card (function creep). It has the potential to become a defacto ID card and could enable peoples’ every movement to be tracked.” Mr Churchill said.

“People also need the right to see their own records, to have access to them and correct them. But we need to be cautious that we don’t allow a situation where anyone with a smart-card scanner can access personal records. So, storing information in a chip on a card is one thing. But a centralised database (or even local and regional systems) is quite another – and with considerable risks, including the possibility of identity theft” Mr Churchill cautioned.

“What is the government trying to hide? The details of the first two Privacy Impact Assessments reports should be made available for public comment. As should the third report which has already been commissioned.” Mr Churchill concluded.

CONTACT:

Darren Churchill

ACT Democrats President

darren.churchill@act.democrats.org.au

Tel: 0412 196 473