Subjects: Hate Crimes Bill; Privacy Act reforms; Doxxing; War crimes inquiry
GREG JENNETT: Michelle Rowland wasn't the only Minister leading the charge into Parliament today. Armed with new pieces of legislation Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus had a couple of quite significant ones himself dealing with privacy and exhortations to violence. He joins us live in the studio now. Attorney, welcome back to the programme. Why don't we start with hate crimes? I think it's fair to say that there were great expectations attaching to the bill that you brought in today. It's about urging or threatening force or violence, not just saying hateful and offensive things. You may have seen the Executive Council of Australian Jewry described it as a step in the right direction but still falls short. They suggest that criminal prosecutions wouldn't be possible against the sorts of chants seen on the forecourt of Sydney Opera House in October last year. Is that true?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL MARK DREYFUS: We're legislating here, as we promised to do earlier in the year, to prevent and criminalise the urging of force or violence - hate speech. It's a very important step forward. The bill is going to go to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I've no doubt there will be further submissions, because this is a contentious area, but we're keeping to the commitment that the Prime Minister made earlier this year which is to bring forward legislation to criminalise hate speech. We've got to draw lines here, Greg. We've got to set standards. We've got to resolutely say to everyone that there's no place in our society for hate speech. There's no place in our society for urging force or violence particularly - and there's more serious penalties for this - particularly when it's directed at someone's race or religion or who they are.
JENNETT: I wonder what practical effect they might have? You cited in your tabling speech the ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess who, of course, has highlighted throughout the year the normalisation of provocative and inflammatory behaviour. Are you suggesting that these laws on quite serious violence or threats of serious violence will somehow tone down, provocative or even just plain offensive public discourse?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Oh, we certainly hope so. The Prime Minister has said words matter. The Director-General of Security, the head of ASIO, as you pointed out, has drawn attention to inflammatory language. We need people to try to be more respectful. We need people to be accepting of difference, to try and understand other people's positions. One of the great strengths of our community is the diversity of it, and it ought to be accepting of difference. It ought to be possible for us to have respectful debates.
JENNETT: Does it take a law to achieve that, I suppose is the question.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Laws set standards Greg, and by passing laws Parliament draws a line and tries to send messages to the whole community that we should set our face against this kind of hate speech.
JENNETT: All right, let's move on to privacy. The second bill, it was multifaceted that you tabled today. One little element that caught my eye is, not yet done, but you're going to have developed a Children's Privacy Code. I'm wondering if this is made redundant by earlier developments this week? That was the Government's announced intention to ban children, perhaps below 16 years of age, banned from social media altogether. Does that somewhat obviate the need for a social media specific code to protect children?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We're looking at the same problem from a whole range of different angles here, Greg, and this Children's Online Privacy Code is going to be directed at the social media platforms, at digital providers, to get them to observe better standards when they are dealing with children.
JENNETT: But it could only be children what, 16 and 17, in the end, could it, if they're banned from the products below that?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Even that is still well worth doing. I expect that it may be some time before we develop this Children's Online Privacy Code, but it's been warmly welcomed by the Alannah & Madeline Foundation, been warmly welcomed by UNICEF, warmly welcomed by all sorts of children's organisations and that's because I think the Australian community wants to see the social media providers, the platforms doing a better job at caring for privacy in particular. That there needs to be a higher standard when it comes to children because children are not able to look after their own welfare to the same extent as adults, they're not able to know when their privacy is being intruded on, they're not able to know as well when information is being collected about them. That's why we need this children's online privacy code and I'm looking forward to it being developed.
JENNETT: So, the headline element of the privacy suite that you put in today is of course, doxxing, publicly releasing online the personal details, including phone numbers and email addresses of Australians. The penalties that attach to that?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There are very serious criminal offences that are being created here for the malicious release of personal and private data online release. It will be six years and where it's directed at someone's personal characteristics, their religion or race or some other attribute, it'll be a more serious offence and carry a penalty of seven years. Again, it's really important that we set some standards here. Most people, I think, who have heard of doxxing would be aware that very often it's directed at women as part of family and domestic violence. It causes tremendous suffering in many cases. We've had other examples of it being directed at particular groups. We are determined to get rid of this practice and one way to do that is to criminalise the conduct. Again, the Prime Minister and I said earlier in the year we would be bringing a law to the Parliament to criminalise doxxing and that's what the law I've introduced to the Parliament today does.
JENNETT: Another part of the privacy bill gives a legal basis for compensation if someone suffers a serious invasion of privacy. I'm wondering what would qualify for a serious invasion if someone was to seek recompense for that?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Well, as I said in introducing the bill, it could be actually a physical invasion of privacy, getting into someone's personal space. Mostly, the Privacy Act deals with a concept of information privacy. A serious invasion of privacy could be actually invading someone's personal space or their private space in some way, but it can also be a misuse of personal and private information about that person in a way that causes serious harm. And we're giving, for the very first time, a private right of action. People will be able to sue. It will be a tort, and they'll be able to sue seeking damages, seeking redress in some way. The court will be able to make orders. This has been talked about for decades, Greg, and I'm very pleased that we're extending privacy protections, because we've got a big project here to bring the Privacy Act, which is from 1988, into the digital age, to make sure it properly serves Australians, expect their privacy to be protected. I think many people are conscious that the current legislation doesn't really do the job. They'll be very pleased with the bill that we've brought to the Parliament today.
JENNETT: And I know you've got more work to come. We heard only yesterday about Facebook scraping adults' data to train its AI models. I won't take you there now, maybe that's something that you address in future tranches of privacy laws. Just finally, Mark Dreyfus, Richard Marles sought to wrap up the Government's response to the Brereton Inquiry on Afghanistan SAS commanders. However, four recommendations remain unfinished or on hold from Brereton pending further examination by the Office of the Special Investigator, which happens to fall within the Attorney-General's Department. Have you any update on how or when that will progress?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: All I can say is that the Office of the Special Investigator and the Australian Federal Police are continuing with what are very difficult investigations. We've had one former serving soldier charged. They are difficult and long running investigations because you need to get them right. A very high standard of proof is required, and that's the work of the Office of the Special investigator. I'm not going to be revealing more than that, other than to say that the work is ongoing, directed at putting together a sufficient case that charges can be laid.
JENNETT: I understand. We'll watch it closely as further developments emerge. Mark Dreyfus, It has been a busy sitting week and a long day for you. We appreciate it as always.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Thanks very much, Greg.
