Disclaimer: The summaries below have been extracted from the 1991-1992 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.

• Inappropriate Setting for Collecting Information - IPP 4
• Disclosure and Use of Intrusive, Inaccurate and Irrelevant Information - IPPs 10 & 11
• Misuse of Information - IPPs 4 & 10
• Information in a Credit Report - credit reporting
• Use of Spent Conviction Information - spent conviction
• Retention of Inaccurate, Incomplete and Not Up - To - Date Records - IPP 8
• Disclosure of Medical Reports - IPP 2

Inappropriate Setting for Collecting Information - IPP 4

A client of an agency was interviewed in the general public contact area of the agency.  As a result, the client felt that his privacy was being compromised.  A verbal complaint lodged at a subsequent interview received no response.  Privacy issues relating to Information Privacy Principles 3 and 4 were investigated by the Privacy Commissioner.  These Information Privacy Principles state that personal information must be collected so as not to intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of an individual, and that personal information must be kept secure.  As a result of these investigations, the agency sent a formal written apology to the client, revised office procedures and increased staff awareness of privacy matters.

Disclosure and Use of Intrusive, Inaccurate and Irrelevant Information - IPPs 10 & 11

A complaint was received from a client of an agency which concerned information on his personal record that was held by the agency.   The record contained material that appeared to breach a number of the Information Privacy Principles.  The breaches related to Information Privacy Principle 3, due to the fact that information was overly intrusive; Information Privacy Principle 8 as the information was inaccurate; Information Privacy Principle 9 because information was used for an irrelevant purpose; Information Privacy Principle 10 because information had been misused; and Information Privacy Principle 11 due to the fact that information had been improperly disclosed to third parties.

The Privacy Commissioner arranged for the agency to meet with the client and agreement was made to alter records, remove those records that could not be amended, as well as to issue a formal apology.  Subsequently, the agency issued an unequivocal apology and acknowledged breaches of privacy.  The Commissioner was assured privacy education of staff would be undertaken to prevent breaches of privacy in the future.

Misuse of Information - IPPs 4 & 10

A client of an agency was approached by a researcher to participate in a study.  The client was extremely upset and wanted to know how the researcher obtained his name and address.  It transpired that the researcher was a part-time employee of the agency and had been given permission to draw research subjects from the agency's client base.  The agency apologised for its conduct, retrieved the original research documents and arranged to have those documents shredded.  The agency also issued a memorandum clarifying for its officers the policy and procedures to be undertaken when such research activities were proposed.

Information in a Credit Report - credit reporting

A man had entered bankruptcy at some time over four years ago.  At that time he had a number of debts which were included in his statement of affairs.  The man complained through a third party that the debts lodged in his statement of affairs were still listed as defaults on his credit report file.  The complaint was investigated and it was found that the defaults were not still listed as alleged.  The credit reporting agency had amended the complainant's file as soon as it was advised of the problem.

Use of Spent Conviction Information - spent conviction

A man successfully applied for a cleaning position with a cleaning contractor and was required to clean a branch office of an agency.  The agency required cleaners to undergo a security check before it would give a clearance for the cleaner to enter the premises.  The form sought details of the applicant's criminal history, and failed to advise the applicant that he was not obliged to disclose certain minor convictions (spent convictions) that were more than ten years old.

The cleaner provided details of a spent conviction, and this was used by the agency to refuse to give a security clearance.  Accordingly, the cleaner was sacked by the contractor.  The cleaner suffered embarrassment and humiliation and loss of wages as a result of this conduct. 

As a result of an investigation, the agency admitted the breach and paid the complainant $3,000 in compensation.

Retention of Inaccurate, Incomplete and Not Up - To - Date Records - IPP 8

A parent complained that an educational institution held on file information about her and her children which was inaccurate, incomplete and not up to date.  She also alleged that the institution continued to use the information without taking any steps to establish the accuracy and completeness of the information.  The information included such things as: the psychological state of the children and parents, their living arrangements, their domestic situation and their racial origin.

After investigation the agency admitted a breach of Information Privacy Principle 8.  The complaint was resolved through conciliation to the satisfaction of all parties.  The agency agreed to archive the offending material in a secure location so that it could no longer be accessed or used.

Disclosure of Medical Reports - IPP 2

A federal public servant took long term sick leave partly as a result of alleged depression.  In assessing the person's entitlement for compensation, the agency obtained a medical report from a physician.  The agency provided the physician with a report previously prepared by a psychiatrist.  The complainant was of the view that the report of the psychiatrist should not have been made available to the physician.  The agency was initially of the view that it was in the interest of all the parties to disclose the psychiatric report to the physician.

The complaint was investigated and it was recognised that there was a breach of Information Privacy Principle 2 in that the agency had not advised the person that medical reports my be disclosed to other medical practitioners.  The complaint was resolved by conciliation and the agency agreed to amend its claim form to advise applicants that medical reports may be disclosed to other practitioners.  The agency also undertook to exercise care in providing medical information.