Electoral Roll for Sale – A Legal Loophole
At the heart of the privacy debate surrounding data matching operations is a critical issue raised by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC): the commercial availability of the national electoral roll. Intended as a tool for electoral administration, the roll contains personal information about Australian voters, including names and addresses.
Yet, as AEC spokesperson Brian Hallett explained, existing legislation permits individuals and businesses to purchase the roll, with no restrictions on how the information is subsequently used.
“The roll is a document for running elections, not for commercial purposes,” Hallett stated. However, the AEC lacks the authority to control or restrict its use once sold, leaving the matter in Parliament’s hands.
In submissions to two Parliamentary Committees, the AEC has urged tighter regulation to prevent misuse. As Hallett emphasized, “If an individual or business buys the roll, we have no control over what they do with it, and that is a matter of concern.”
This legal loophole underscores the vulnerabilities in Australia’s privacy framework at the time. While privacy protections existed for government data, personal information collected by the private sector, including electoral data, remained largely unregulated.
As Kerry Packer and ACXIOM sought to consolidate consumer data into one of the most comprehensive commercial databases in the country, the AEC’s warning signaled the potential risks of unfettered access to sensitive information.
Advertisement:
Government Delays and the Privacy Legislation Gap
With growing public anxiety about corporate data collection, attention turned to the Federal Government, which had promised to introduce private sector privacy legislation by the end of 1999.
However, the then-Attorney-General Daryl Williams admitted in an interview with Alexandra Kirk that the Bill would not be ready in time, leaving Australia’s private sector free to operate without privacy obligations until the legislation could be passed.
“Companies like ACXIOM can collect information like anyone else,” Williams acknowledged. “They will not be subject to privacy legislation until the Bill is enacted, but they will be as soon as Parliament resumes in February.”
Williams dismissed comparisons between the Packer – ACXIOM data warehouse and the Australia Card, a national ID scheme that was fiercely opposed and defeated by the Coalition years earlier. “This is simply a large-scale exercise of what happens commercially every day,” Williams said.
The delay in enacting the legislation raised concerns about how businesses could handle personal information in the meantime. Despite this, Williams expressed confidence that responsible companies would adhere to industry principles voluntarily.
“It’s good business to protect the privacy of people you want to deal with,” he argued. However, critics feared that without binding laws, consumer privacy remained vulnerable to exploitation.
The Role of Parliament and the Need for Reform
The AEC’s call for reform placed the onus on Parliament to address the gaps in privacy protection, particularly concerning the electoral roll. While Daryl Williams deferred responsibility to the Electoral Commissioner and the Special Minister of State, the issue highlighted the challenges of regulating data in an increasingly digitized world.
The Attorney-General confirmed that the government planned to consult with stakeholders over the Christmas and New Year period to fine-tune the legislation. When questioned about the possibility of retrospective provisions, Williams explained that some parts of the new law would cover data collected before the Bill’s passage, especially since companies regularly update their databases.
However, Williams stopped short of committing to immediate action. Asked if the government would ask ACXIOM and Packer’s joint venture to follow the legislation’s principles voluntarily, Williams replied, “It’s really a matter for the Privacy Commissioner.”
He expressed optimism that responsible companies would act in good faith, but his comments did little to quell public unease.
Trusting the Private Sector – A Fragile Assumption
Williams’ remarks revealed the government’s reliance on private sector goodwill, a stance that many privacy advocates found troubling. “I would expect that a responsible organization will act responsibly,” Williams told Kirk, emphasizing that businesses have an incentive to protect consumer trust for long-term success.
However, his assurances fell short of addressing deeper concerns about data misuse and privacy breaches.
With no immediate legislative safeguards, the public was left to trust that companies would act in their best interest. Williams acknowledged that while the new law might not prevent data collection, it would establish clear rules for how information is used, stored, and disclosed.
Yet, without the legislation in place, organizations like ACXIOM could operate with minimal oversight in the interim, raising questions about accountability.
The reliance on voluntary compliance highlighted a significant gap in Australia’s privacy regime. As Alexandra Kirk pointed out during the interview, the electoral roll’s use for commercial purposes exemplified the challenges of regulating data in a globalized, digital economy.
In response, Williams insisted that new laws were on the way but urged patience. “We expect to introduce the Bill as soon as Parliament resumes in February,” he said, though by then, data collection efforts might already be well underway.
A Balancing Act Between Privacy and Commerce
The interviews with Brian Hallett and Daryl Williams reveal the complex dynamics at play as Australia navigated the uncharted waters of data privacy at the turn of the century. While the AEC voiced its concern over the commercial exploitation of electoral data, the government’s delayed response left significant gaps in consumer protection.
In the absence of legislation, businesses were encouraged to act responsibly, but without enforceable rules, the balance between privacy and commerce remained precarious.
As the ACXIOM-Packer venture pushed forward, the debate underscored the urgent need for comprehensive privacy laws to regulate data in both the public and private sectors. For now, Australians could only hope that the goodwill of corporations would align with the public interest—a fragile assumption in an increasingly data-driven world.
The real test would come in February, when the new legislation was expected to arrive, potentially setting a precedent for how personal information would be handled in the 21st century. Until then, the tension between innovation and privacy would continue to shape the national conversation.
Related stories
Media As Resistance: Disrupting and Shifting Power – the story of this website discussed in Queensland Parliament leading to coals seam gas company sponsorship removed from police vehicles
Media Jujistu: strategy of media as a process to turn opponent’s own power against them – Part two of the story as written by PhD candidate
Culture Jamming – Activism for the Information Age
What is Elon Musk’s “everything app” aka “X”?
Defence funding to merge lab-grown human brain cells with AI
Further reading from Amazon
Culture Jamming: Activism and the Art of Cultural Resistance, 2017 by Marilyn DeLaure, Moritz Fink
Culture Jam: How to Reverse America’s Suicidal Consumer Binge—and Why We Must by Kalle Lasn
Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture, 2004 by Joseph Heath, Andrew Potter
American Cultural Shifts: Examining the Issues That Are Tearing Our Country Apart, 2022 by Dr. Alan Scarrow
Advertisement:
