Bills

Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 March 2025.)

Clauses 30 to 35 passed.

Clause 36.

Mr WHETSTONE: For clause 36—Amendment of section 31A, recommendation 25 suggests penalties should be raised to match other legislation. What is the legislation used as the basis for the penalty increase?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: We do not have that to hand, but we can get that. If you give us a moment we will find out what other piece of legislation, or pieces of legislation, that was modelled on. I am sure we can get it for you, but we may have to wait for it. If the member for Chaffey wishes to move on to others, can we do that and I will come back and answer.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I am in the committee's hands—if you are prepared to wait?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: We should be able to find out.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Were there any more questions on this clause?

Mr WHETSTONE: No further questions for clause 36.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Where then is your next question, if we do not have an answer to this one just yet?

Mr WHETSTONE: I would like to move on to Schedule 1—Transitional provision and review.

Consideration of clauses 36 to 41 postponed.

Schedule 1.

Mr WHETSTONE: Recommendation 28 suggests the act should be reviewed every seven years. Why has the government chosen six?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Member for Chaffey, the advice from parliamentary counsel is that they thought that a shorter gap between reviews would be a better idea because it would help to keep the act up to date, as it should be. If we had a review in six-year periods rather than seven-year periods, it would perhaps prevent the need for the kinds of more wholesale changes that we are making now.

Schedule passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you for your patience, member for Chaffey. In respect of the recommendation for clause 36 around breach of confidentiality, we have sought some advice. I understand that the commonwealth Privacy Act 1988, which governs the handling of personal information and includes provisions for penalties related to breaches of confidentiality, was looked at.

Although that act does not specify a fixed $20,000 fine for all breaches, there has been a look at cases in which that clause has been invoked and used, and it has awarded compensation for non-economic loss ranging from $1,000 up to $20,000. The advice I have is that that upper limit of $20,000 in terms of what has been awarded under the national legislation was used as an example of what we should put in place in this act.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just a clarification, minister: the penalty was adjusted to fall under a national act or a federal act, rather than a state act?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: It was not adjusted to fall under a federal act. Parliamentary counsel looked at other like acts, one of which was the one that governs commonwealth legislation. They had a look, I presume, at what would have been some of the case law around where it had been used, where people had brought action under that act seeking compensation for breach of confidentiality. Where claimants had been successful, the penalty or remedy handed out ranged from, I think, $1,000 to $20,000, depending on the severity of the breach and its impact on the individual. It was decided for the purposes of this state act that we would choose $20,000 as the figure for a breach.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (37 to 41) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills) (11:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank all those who spoke on the bill from both sides of parliament. I want to thank the member for Chaffey for his very constructive questions as well and the speedy passage of this bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.