Disclaimer: The summaries below have been extracted from the 1994-1995 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.

• Government agency discloses personal details of non-custodial parents - IPP 11
• Personal details disclosed to foreign government - IPP 11
• All staff notice contains personal information - IPP 10
• Anonymous dob-in not protected - IPP 11
• Disclosure in China - IPP 11
• The wrong assumption - IPP 11
• Personnel section informs co-worker of colleague's pregnancy - IPP 10
• Collection of information in a social setting - IPP 1
• UK pensioner demonstrates that agency's administrative practices were in error - IPPs 1 & 3
• Personal information given to political party - IPP 11
• Collection not in breach of the Privacy Act - IPP 3
• Bank faxes details to wrong number - Section 18N
• Credit provider lacked documentary evidence - Section 18E(8)(c)
• Use of sister's Tax File Number causes incorrect tax assessment

Government agency discloses personal details of non-custodial parents - IPP 11

Over the years a number of complaints have been received about the payment of child support.  In the past, the Child Support Agency has tended to deny that it has breached the Act and has strongly argued that it was not liable to pay any compensation for loss or damage.  During the year, three complaints were finalised with the agency agreeing to pay compensation for hurt or humiliation caused to its clients.  In each case the agency failed to take adequate steps to check the accuracy of information that was provided to it, resulting in formal notices being sent to the wrong party as follows:

• The client worked for a firm of solicitors and the agency sent a notice to a different firm of solicitors with a similar name. The principals at each firm were cousins who were also related to the complainant, resulting in discussion between the two firms about the complainant's personal affairs.
• Not having the correct employer details but knowing that the client was working as a locum in a medical practice somewhere in a certain area, the agency sent multiple notices to a number of medical practitioners on the expectation that one of them would be the correct employer. The complainant felt this had harmed his employment prospects with the other medical practices.
• The agency sent a notice in error to a man who was not a client advising him of his obligations as a non custodial parent. At the time the man's wife was suspicious that he may have been involved in an affair with another woman, but was satisfied when the agency explained its mistake and apologised.

Eighteen months later, when a second unrelated notice was sent to the man, his wife was convinced that he must have had one or more extra marital relationships.  The compensation was for the severe strain that was placed on the man's marriage.

Personal details disclosed to foreign government - IPP 11

An agency unnecessarily disclosed the complainant's personal details to the embassy of a foreign government.  As a result of this disclosure the complainant had to renounce her Australian citizenship.  The agency acknowledged the disclosure as soon as it came to their attention, and took steps to prevent a reoccurrence.  The agency also assisted the complainant to regain her Australian citizenship.  She was given over $21,000 in compensation.  This consisted of $7,500 for general damages and the remainder for direct economic loss in costs incurred in ensuring that her overseas property was not confiscated.

All staff notice contains personal information - IPP 10

An agency agreed to pay a woman $10,000 compensation for her embarrassment over two notices sent to all staff at a government establishment.  When the complainant reported that she had legionnaire's disease, a notice was sent to all staff, naming her and explaining that as she had this disease the air conditioning towers were to be cleaned.  A later notice advised incorrectly that the woman did not have legionnaire's disease.  The woman felt humiliated by the probability that her co-workers may have interpreted this to mean that she had invented an illness.

Anonymous dob-in not protected - IPP 11

A complainant from an ethnic community wrote to a welfare payment agency to advise that a member of the community was fraudulently obtaining a benefit.  The letter was written in a community language and the agency employed a casual interpreter to translate the letter.  The person named in the letter was later given a copy of the letter and certain persons then threatened the complainant.  The complainant also lost standing within his community as a result of this disclosure.

Circumstantial evidence strongly suggested that the interpreter knew the person named in the letter and made a copy of it when it was translated.  The agency accepted responsibility for the disclosure and paid the complainant $5,000.

Disclosure in China - IPP 11

The complainant applied for refugee status in Australia and produced a document from a Chinese employer in support of that application.  The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the document was a forgery and decided to investigate its authenticity by checking with the employer in China.  The complainant alleged that there had been a disclosure of his personal information.  The Commissioner decided that a disclosure had occurred, but that as there were reasonable doubts about the authenticity of the document, it was necessary to make the enquiries.  Accordingly, the disclosure was authorised by the appropriate Australian law.  Although there was no breach of the Act, the agency now supplies visa applicants with a notice informing them that documents will be authenticated with authors where necessary. 

The wrong assumption - IPP 11

A complainant who worked for a tax agent lodged his own personal income tax return claiming a dependent spouse rebate.  In checking his claim the agency rang the complainant's employer and spoke to two senior staff members disclosing that they were investigating the complainant's tax claim.  The agency admitted that there was an error in that the investigator thought that the tax form had been prepared and submitted by a tax agent, and incorrectly assumed that the work telephone number provided by the complainant was the number for the complainant's tax agent.  The complainant was given $2,000 compensation for his embarrassment at having his personal affairs discussed at his work place.

Personnel section informs co-worker of colleague's pregnancy - IPP 10

A woman employed by a government agency became pregnant and, for personal reasons, did not want this fact know to her colleagues.  She made discreet enquiries about her maternity leave entitlements with her personnel section.  A personnel officer later returned her call, by leaving a message with a colleague asking her to ring personnel ''about her maternity leave'.  The woman was embarrassed about this leak and subsequently resigned.  The agency apologised to her and, as a gesture of good will, waived an overpayment of $284.  The agency organised some further Privacy Act training for personnel staff.

Collection of information in a social setting - IPP 1

There have been several complaints that public servants have collected personal information about clients in a social setting and have used that information in their official capacity.  In one case, the public servant discovered that a guest at a party knew a person who the public servant was currently investigating.  Personal information was then solicited from the guest.  The Commissioner considered this collection of personal information to be an unfair collection in breach of IPP 1.  In another case, where a public servant passively overhead a conversation in a social club without attempting to elicit further information,  the collection was considered not to be in breach of the Act.  Both these complaints raised issues about collecting personal information about clients in a social setting, and the agency concerned agreed to issue guidelines to its staff in consultation with this office.

UK pensioner demonstrates that agency's administrative practices were in error - IPPs 1 & 3

The complainant advised a benefit paying agency that he had been granted a UK pension.  The Australian Department of Social Security then contacted the relevant UK agency in order to directly confirm details, without the complainant's consent or knowledge.  The request was for irrelevant information, and was alleged to be unfair as it involved the agency going behind the complainant's back.  Although the complainant did not know that this request had been made, he specifically advised the agency previously that he did not want them to contact the UK agency.  On this point, the Australian agency acknowledged procedural error in requesting some irrelevant information, apologised and took steps to prevent recurrence.

However, the agency claimed there was an agreement between the Australian and UK agencies that allowed for such requests without the consent of the complainant.  In response, the complainant produced UK agency documentation suggesting that a document known as "Administrative Arrangements" disallowed requests for UK information without prior authorisation.  The agency acknowledged this, apologised to the complainant and took steps to review the relevant Agreement and Arrangements in meetings with the UK agency.

Personal information given to political party - IPP 11

A woman complained that her personal details given to the Australian Electoral Commission but suppressed on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll were provided to a Queensland political party which subsequently sent her party political material.  Upon investigation, it was found that the disclosure was not in breach of the Privacy Act because the disclosure was authorised by the Commonwealth Electoral Act.  However, the Australian Electoral Commission recognised that the Joint Roll Agreement was flawed in that suppressed personal information passed to the State electoral offices was not also suppressed at the State level.  The arrangements under the Joint Roll Agreement have now been changed, and a Commonwealth/State working party has been set up to look at consistent protection of suppressed electoral information nationally.

Collection not in breach of the Privacy Act - IPP 3

The agency was considering whether or not to prosecute the complainant in relation to his business activities and examine him under oath.  The complainant refused to answer certain questions about his health, and the agency then served a statutory notice upon the complainant compelling him to provide details of any medical practitioners he had consulted as well as any written report and recommendations made by those practitioners.  The Commissioner decided that while the collection of medical information may be intrusive, it was not unreasonably so in this case.  The information was also considered directly relevant to the purpose of collection.  The complainant had raised his medical condition as a defence to his actions and the respondent was correctly seeking substantiation to ascertain whether prosecution was warranted.

Bank faxes details to wrong number - Section 18N

The complainant and his wife applied for a loan with a bank, and provided the bank with all their financial details (including tax returns).  The bank's branch office then faxed these details (plus comments on the credit worthiness of the complainants) in a nineteen page fax to its head office.  Unfortunately, the fax was incorrectly sent to an unrelated third party.

The bank responded to the complaint by directing all its branch offices to ensure that the head office fax number was stored in the autodial memory of every branch fax machine and paid $500 each to the complainant and his wife for their embarrassment.

Credit provider lacked documentary evidence - Section 18E(8)(c)

The complainant alleged that the credit provider had incorrectly listed him as being in default when in fact an agreement was in place to repay an outstanding debt over an extended term.  It was further alleged that the default listing was invalid as no section 18E(8)(c) notice was given by the credit provider.  This provision of the Privacy Act requires a credit provider to notify a client that it will list a default with a credit reporting agency.

The complainant acknowledged that the payments were more than 60 days overdue but denied ever receiving the required notice.  The credit provider was not able to produce any evidence that it had sent the complainant the required notice, although it was able to state that this was its normal practice.  The credit provider deleted the default from the complainant's credit information file and paid him $2,000 compensation.

Use of sister's Tax File Number causes incorrect tax assessment

A tax agent used the tax file number of the complainant in error on her sister's income taxation assessment return amendment form.  As a consequence, the Australian Taxation Office issued the complainant with a reassessment notice for additional income.   In response to the complaint, the tax agent explained his error to the Australian Taxation Office, apologised to the complainant and paid an undisclosed amount in compensation for stress and anxiety arising from the error.