Disclaimer: The summaries below have been extracted from the 1990-1991 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.

• Police Record Check - IPP 8
• Provision of Client Information to Third Party - IPP 11
• Poor Information - IPP 8
• Privacy and Sweeping Subpoenas - IPPs 8 & 11
• Inadequate Security of Tax File Numbers - TFN
• Duplicate Tax File Number - TFN

Police Record Check - IPP 8

A young woman seeking entry into the Naval Reserve was the subject of a police record check.  The record provided by a federal agency described her as a "suspect' in relation to an offence.  She was denied entry into the Reserve.  The woman claimed that the agency's record was wrong.

During investigation, the agency acknowledged that incorrect information had been provided.  The matter was resolved with the agency altering its procedures for supplying information to prevent a recurrence.  The agency wrote to the complainant explaining the situation and apologising for an inconvenience the incident had caused her.  The woman was accepted into the Naval Reserve.

Provision of Client Information to Third Party - IPP 11

A man alleged that a federal department had disclosed numerous details concerning his personal life to another person who had dealings with the department, without his knowledge or consent.  The department was responsible for determining eligibility for certain illness-related benefits and had intentionally included details from the man's file in correspondence sent to the other person because they were illustrative of its approach to this category of cases.

When the matter was raised with the department, it acknowledged that there had been a breach of the Privacy Act.  The department indicated that it had taken action to ensure that such a breach would not occur again.  This included training sessions run by the department's privacy contact officer, including additional training for officers working in the area responsible for the breach.  A circular alerting staff to the matter was issued throughout the department and a written apology handed personally to the complainant who advised that the matter had been satisfactorily resolved.

Poor Information - IPP 8

A woman lodged a complaint against a federal compensation agency raising a number of issues concerning the accuracy and use of personal information by the agency in its assessment of her case.  Her concerns included that some reports made by the agency contained irrelevant information.

Following investigation, a conciliation conference was held and a lengthy agreement was reached which resolved the matter.  The agreement included an acknowledgment by the agency of difficulties and delays that the complainant had experienced in dealing with it;  an agreement to annotate various documents containing personal information to the satisfaction of the complainant; agreement that requests for further amendments would be processed quickly and copies of all corrected documents would be sent to the complainant; and the referral of a number of policy issues arising out of the complaint for further consultation between the authority and the Privacy Commissioner.  A commitment was also given by the agency to review a decision it had made.  This review may result in a substantial monetary payment to the complainant.

Privacy and Sweeping Subpoenas - IPPs 8 & 11

A couple lodged a complaint against a federal department concerning the release by the department of personnel and medical files under subpoena in relation to a court case.  The case involved the husband but not the wife.

As a result of the wife's information being given to the party taking action against the husband, sensitive personal matters of no apparent relevance to the proceedings became known to that party and its legal advisers.  Moreover some of this material was canvassed in open court in cross-examination of the husband.

Throughout the conciliation process the department maintained that it did not have the power to refuse to release the information which was the subject of the subpoena.  A conciliation conference was held and the matter was resolved when the department agreed that in future it would advise persons whose records were the subject of a subpoena of that fact; that it would take steps to clarify the scope of ''Crown privilege' with respect to certain records; and examine the possibility of deleting certain classes of personal information from its records.

Inadequate Security of Tax File Numbers - TFN

The Commission received a number of complaints from employees of a local government authority concerning the sorting and distribution of employees' group certificates.  This included claims that in some instances, group certificates were left on a desk in a bundle for employees to sort through and find their own with the potential for tax file number abuses.  The complaints were about inadequate security of employees' tax file numbers.

The matter was raised with the authority and it agreed that in future all group certificates would be forwarded to various work locations in sealed, personally addressed envelopes and would be distributed to the appropriate person by selected staff members.

Duplicate Tax File Number - TFN

A woman lodged a complaint alleging that her tax file number had been also assigned to another person.  The woman alleged that she had never received an anticipated refund cheque, though the agency claimed it had sent one and provided her with the details of the payment.  These details clearly related to someone else. 

The agency conducted its own investigation of the matter and acknowledged that there had been an error resulting in the issuing of the same tax file number to two people with similar names.  It allocated a new number to the complainant and indicated that the situation would not arise again because a new computer system was in place.  The complainant advised that no further action was necessary.