{"title":"Strengthening Enforcement and Redress Under the Australian Privacy Act","authors":"Katharine Kemp","doi":"10.54648/gplr2022016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The regulatory regime provided by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) has long been criticized for its limited effectiveness in providing both remedies for individuals and guidance and deterrence for entities obliged to comply with the statute. Key concerns include the restricted rights of redress for individuals, and the inadequate powers and funding of the federal privacy regulator, the Australian Information Commissioner. In the last three years, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has begun to take on an important role in advocating for reform of Australia’s privacy law, assessing the potential anticompetitive effects of the data practices of digital platforms, and actively litigating privacyrelated misleading conduct matters under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This article describes the contrast in the roles, powers and funding of these two regulators and makes proposals for reform which would assist in providing Australians with appropriate access to justice in directly redressing privacy wrongs beyond organizations’ misleading representations about data practices.\nAustralia, Data Privacy, Privacy Regulators, Enforcement, Redress","PeriodicalId":127582,"journal":{"name":"Global Privacy Law Review","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Privacy Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2022016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The regulatory regime provided by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) has long been criticized for its limited effectiveness in providing both remedies for individuals and guidance and deterrence for entities obliged to comply with the statute. Key concerns include the restricted rights of redress for individuals, and the inadequate powers and funding of the federal privacy regulator, the Australian Information Commissioner. In the last three years, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has begun to take on an important role in advocating for reform of Australia’s privacy law, assessing the potential anticompetitive effects of the data practices of digital platforms, and actively litigating privacyrelated misleading conduct matters under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This article describes the contrast in the roles, powers and funding of these two regulators and makes proposals for reform which would assist in providing Australians with appropriate access to justice in directly redressing privacy wrongs beyond organizations’ misleading representations about data practices.
Australia, Data Privacy, Privacy Regulators, Enforcement, Redress
《1988年隐私法》(Cth)规定的监管制度长期以来一直受到批评,因为它在为个人提供补救措施和为有义务遵守该法规的实体提供指导和威慑方面效力有限。主要问题包括个人的补救权利受到限制,以及联邦隐私监管机构澳大利亚信息专员(Australian Information Commissioner)的权力和资金不足。在过去的三年中,澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会(ACCC)开始在倡导澳大利亚隐私法的改革,评估数字平台数据实践的潜在反竞争影响,以及根据澳大利亚消费者法(ACL)积极提起与隐私相关的误导行为诉讼方面发挥重要作用。本文描述了这两个监管机构在角色、权力和资金方面的对比,并提出了改革建议,这将有助于为澳大利亚人提供适当的司法途径,直接纠正组织对数据实践的误导性陈述之外的隐私错误。澳大利亚,数据隐私,隐私监管机构,执法,补救