Disclaimer: The summaries below have been extracted from the 1989-1990 Annual Report of the Privacy Commissioner. They illustrate how the Privacy Commissioner has previously resolved privacy complaints and should not be relied on as legal advice.

• Suspicion of Crime - IPPs 8 & 11
• Improper Use of Tax File Numbers - TFN
• Disclosure of Silent Number - IPP 11
• Disclosure of Psychological Assessment - IPP 11
• Unfair Allegation - IPPs 8 & 11

Suspicion of Crime - IPPs 8 & 11

The Commissioner received a complaint from a woman who was unsuccessful in gaining a position and who alleged this was due to the disclosure of incorrect information held by a Commonwealth agency.  The record disclosed alleged that the woman was suspected of a criminal offence, though she had never been interviewed in regard to the matter.  The woman had consented to the release of information by the Commonwealth agency during the recruitment process and was not aware that incorrect information was held until she was unsuccessful in gaining the position.  She advised the employer that the information was incorrect, and following the employer's contact with the Commonwealth agency the record was amended and the woman was subsequently recruited to the position.

At the woman's request the Commissioner contacted the Commonwealth agency.  As a result of the complaint, the agency amended its procedures in checking information prior to disclosure of details held on records.

Improper Use of Tax File Numbers - TFN

A man contacted the Commissioner alleging that a statutory authority required the production of his tax assessment notice, with the Tax File Number being noted, to substantiate a claim for a concession from the authority.

The matter was successfully resolved with the statutory authority making changes which removed any requirement on applicants to disclose Tax File Number information when applying for concessions.  This required amendments to forms used by the authority.

Disclosure of Silent Number - IPP 11

The Commissioner received a complaint from a man concerning the alleged disclosure of his silent telephone number and publication of his private address in the directory.  The complainant had wanted a silent line because his partner's ex-husband had a history of aggressive behaviour necessitating a restraining order being taken out to prevent harassment.

After some dispute concerning the facts of the matter, the respondent agency apologised for the error, paid financial compensation and agreed to tighten provisions relating to the security of silent numbers.

Disclosure of Psychological Assessment - IPP 11

A mother and father approached the Commissioner on behalf of their daughter alleging that her privacy had been breached by a Commonwealth government recruitment service.

The parents alleged that an occupational psychological assessment report was used to determine their daughter's suitability for a traineeship with a Federal department.  The daughter was allegedly refused employment due to the information contained in the report.  The parents objected to the release of this information without their daughter's consent and were concerned that it could affect her future employment prospects.

The matter was successfully resolved with the respondent agreeing to destroy the assessment report and increase staff awareness on the need for client consent concerning the release of personal information.  The respondent also undertook to assist the daughter in finding suitable employment.

Unfair Allegation - IPPs 8 & 11

The Commissioner was approached by a woman who alleged that she had received a letter from a Commonwealth statutory authority advising her that investigation into nuisance phone calls had traced such calls to her phone on two occasions.  The letter outlined the penalties for this type of activity and also advised her that a copy of the letter (which included the complainant's name, address and silent telephone number) had been forwarded to the people who had been receiving the nuisance calls.

The complainant denied that the calls had been made from her phone, as she and her partner were both at work at the times when they had supposedly been made.  Several days after receiving the letter from the statutory authority, the complainant began to receive threatening calls, allegedly from the people who had been sent the letter.  As a result, the complainant had her telephone number changed.

Some time later, the complainant was approached in the street by a woman who identified herself as the person who had made the original complaint to the statutory authority.  The woman allegedly apologised for the harassment saying it had been a mistake, as she now thought she knew who had made the original nuisance calls.

The statutory authority concerned acknowledged liability and offered the complainant financial compensation and a formal apology.