2006 - Complaint Case Note 4

View printable version of this page

Case Citation:
D v Banking Institution [2006] PrivCmrA 4

Subject Heading:
Unnecessary collection of personal information.

Law:
National Privacy Principle 1.1 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Facts:
In the course of seeking to open a deposit account at a banking institution the complainant was asked to complete an application that included a question about their marital status. The complainant objected to providing this information, believing it to be unnecessary for the purposes of opening the account. The banking institution advised the complainant that its system did not allow accounts of this kind to be opened without entering information in the ‘marital status’ field.

The complainant wrote to the banking institution and it responded stating that modifications to its system to enable individuals to open accounts without disclosing their marital status would take some time. It proposed that to open the account on behalf of the complainant, it would use the response of “single” in the mandatory data field, and it would include a note stating that the entry may not reflect actual marital status. The complainant wrote to the Privacy Commissioner dissatisfied with the banking institution’s response.

Issues:
National Privacy Principle 1 prevents organisations from collecting personal information unless it is necessary for one or more of its functions or activities.

The banking institution agreed that the collection of marital status information would not be considered necessary for its functions or activities; in this case because the complainant’s marital status had no bearing on the complainant’s eligibility to open the account.

Outcome:
In consultation with the Commissioner the banking institution agreed that it would change its computer system so that when individuals applied for a deposit account, they would no longer be required to disclose their marital status if they did not wish to. The banking institution committed to providing the Commissioner with quarterly reports on the progress of its implementation program. Further, the banking institution also resolved to raise the issue of marital status collection with its industry body as it appeared to be an industry-wide practice.

The Commissioner was satisfied with the measures taken by the banking institution to ensure that personal information was not being collected unnecessarily and closed the complaint under section 41(2)(a) of the Privacy Act on the basis that the banking institution had adequately dealt with the matter. The Commissioner later advised the complainant about the progress of the implementation of the modifications by the banking institution.

OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
February 2006