PART VI - PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION No. 3

(PID 3A)

In respect of

Application No :	3 (dated 6 March 1990)
Applicant :	Director of Public Prosecutions
Nature of the Application:	Disclosure of personal information to relevant statutory disciplinary or regulatory bodies.
Information Privacy Principle Concerned::	Information Privacy Principle 11
Issued :	22 August 1991
Tabled :	4 September 1991
Effective :

DETERMINATION

Under section 72 of the Privacy Act 1988, I give notice of my determination, as follows:

A waiver is granted from compliance with Information Privacy Principle 11.1 in relation to the following practice.

Act or Practice Permitted

The Director of Public Prosecutions may disclose to a relevant authority information in its possession about an individual where that information indicates serious misconduct directly relevant to the performance of a regulated occupation or profession; or of a public service position.

1. Meaning of Terms

(a) A "relevant authority" refers to:

(i) any person or body responsible for investigating or disposing of complaints under a scheme of occupational or professional regulation established or expressly recognised by statute; or

(ii) any person or body responsible for investigating or disposing of complaints relating to the conduct of the holder of a public service position in the government of the Commonwealth; any State; the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory.

(b) A "regulated occupation or profession" refers to any occupation or profession subject to a scheme of occupational or professional regulation established or expressly recognised by statute.

(c) A "public service position" refers to a position in the public services of the governments of the Commonwealth; any State or the Australian Capital Territory or Northern Territory.

2. Conditions

Disclosure shall be made subject to the following procedural safeguards:

(1) Unless there are circumstances of urgency or other compelling public interest which justify earlier disclosure, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall only disclose personal information after his office has fulfilled its responsibilities inrelation to dealing with that information.

(2) Information contained in any of the following categories of records held by the Director of Public Prosecutions and in so far as the material relates to the individual, may be disclosed:

• witness statements;
• summary statements of facts;
• criminal history records which can reasonably be regarded as relevant and timely and provided they are not protected by spent convictions law;
• transcripts of any relevant proceedings;
• exhibits prepared for or tendered in proceedings.

(3) Unless there is a real likelihood that notification would interfere with the effective conduct of a pending prosecution or any disciplinary procedures, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall advise the individual of his intention to disclose the information and give the individual a reasonable opportunity to comment, in particular as to the scope of the material to be communicated. If practicable, similar action should be taken in relation to any information provided by witnesses or other third parties that is proposed to be forwarded.

(4) The Director of Public Prosecutions shall include with any information supplied to the recipient agency any material of which he has become aware in the course of managing the case, including any ruling, which disputes the accuracy or value of that information.

(5) Disclosure must be authorised by any officer of the agency occupying a position at Senior Executive Service level. Disclosures should take into account any advice given by the agency's Privacy Contact Officer; and be notified to the Privacy Contact Officer.

(6) Any disclosure shall be conditional on a written undertaking from the recipient agency that the information will be handled in a manner consistent with the Information Privacy Principles, and in particular that Information Privacy Principle 11.3 (limiting re-use and re-disclosure) will be observed. The recipient agency should be advised of the Privacy Commissioner's role in monitoring these disclosures.

(7) The disclosure must be made to the principal executive officer of a recipient agency.

(8) The Privacy Contact Officer shall keep a record of all disclosures made by the agency and provide that record to the Privacy Commissioner's office. The record kept shall include the following:

• recipient agency;
• type of information disclosed;
• whether the disclosure was on the agency's initiative or instigated by the recipient agency;
• whether the individual or any third party was notified prior to disclosure and the date of that notification.
• response from the individual or third party, if any.

3. Monitoring

The Privacy Commissioner shall monitor the operation of this determination and notes that if his office considers that the determination is not being observed, he may make a further determination revoking or varying this determination.

 

Dated this 22nd day of August 1991

KEVIN O'CONNOR Privacy Commissioner

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION

 

1. Background

On 5 September 1989 the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ("the agency"), applied under section 73 of the Privacy Act for a public interest determination under section 72 of the Privacy Act in relation to the practice of disclosing to appropriate disciplinary and regulatory bodies including public service agencies, certain personal information under its control. The agency was concerned that the practice might contravene Information Privacy Principle 11.1 of the Privacy Act which places limits on the disclosure practices of Commonwealth agencies.

A determination (PID 3) was made on 29 October 1990 and subsequently revoked on 7 March 1991. It was revoked after the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances raised procedural concerns regarding the notification of interested parties. The application remains current. The seven submissions made during the initial determination process also remain current: see attachment A. The agency in a letter dated 12 March 1991 gave further advice in relation to the scope of its application.

In accordance with section 74 of the Privacy Act, I published, on 13 March 1991, a notice in two leading newspapers advising of the application and revocation, seeking additional expressions of interest and submissions. A copy of the notice forms attachment B. In addition, a copy of the draft determination was also forwarded to parties considered to be potentially interested in the application: see attachment C. Two additional submissions were received from the Department of Social Security and the NSW Department of Health Medical Complaints Unit. Both were in support of the determination.

Three of the original submissions received indicated that there were concerns in relation to the application. The main concerns raised were the lack of clarity of the application; the desirability of identifying the precise nature of the information to be released; and the authorities to which the information would be provided. The submissions also sought clarification as to the criteria used by the agency in deciding to disclose; what, if any, restrictions applied to subsequent use of the information by the recipient authority; and whether the agency provided the recipient with any assessment as to the weight of the information disclosed. Six submissions expressed support for the disclosure practice which is the subject of the application.

In preparing the new determination I have taken account of the statutory conference which occurred in relation to the revoked determination and submissions made subsequent to that conference, and the more recent conference held on 17 May 1991 (see further section 3).

 

2. Findings

The findings on material questions of fact relating to the present application are as follows:

(i) The applicant agency, the Director of Public Prosecutions, is established under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (the Act).

(ii) The functions of the agency are set out in section 6 of the Act and include the following:

(a) To institute and carry on prosecutions on indictment for indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth;

(b) To institute and carry on proceedings for the commitment of persons for trial in respect of indictable offences against the laws of the Commonwealth;

(c) To institute and carry on proceedings for the summary conviction of persons in respect of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth;

(d) To assist a coroner in inquests and inquiries conducted under the laws of the Commonwealth;

(e) To appear in proceedings under the Extradition Act 1988 or the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987; and

(f) Where the Director, with the consent of the Attorney-General, holds an appointment to prosecute offences against the laws of a State - to institute and carry on, in accordance with the terms of the appointment, prosecutions for such offences; and

(g) To take, or co-ordinate or supervise the taking of, civil remedies;

(h) To institute, carry on, or co-ordinate or supervise the institution or carrying on of, proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties under the laws of the Commonwealth; and

(i) To take proceedings under the Proceeds of Crimes Act 1987.

(iii) It has been the practice of the agency, where information has come into its possession in the course of exercising its statutory functions, to refer certain information to an appropriate disciplinary authority for that authority's consideration as to whether disciplinary action should be taken against the individual concerned. The information provided may relate to a matter which was the subject of a prosecution or proposed prosecution or, alternatively, may concern a matter which, in a strict sense, is unrelated to the question whether any criminal offence has been committed.

(iv) The agency may provide such information upon the request of an appropriate disciplinary authority or at its own instigation.

(v) In handling personal information, the agency is required to comply with the Information Privacy Principles set out in section 14 of the Privacy Act 1988. Principle 11.1 limits the disclosure of personal information held by the agency as a record keeper to certain prescribed circumstances. None of these circumstances apply to the disclosure practice in question, and the agency would therefore be in breach of Principle 11 if it made such disclosures.

The Privacy Act recognises the need to allow disclosures about individuals which are reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law. The relevant exception (exception (e) of IPP 11.1) does not make provision for disclosures about individuals for the purpose of enforcing laws relating to discipline (or, for that matter, to assist civil litigation).

 

3. Statutory Conference

A conference pursuant to section 76 of the Act was held on 17 May 1991 and attended by representatives of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Public Service Commission; Complaints Unit NSW Department of Health; the Public Sector Union (PSU); the Public Service Association; the Australian Privacy Foundation and the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. The Public Service Commission and Complaints Unit NSW Department of Health supported the draft determination.

The Australian Privacy Foundation raised concerns regarding disclosures to non-Commonwealth agencies which lack the requisite standards of privacy protection.

Both public sector unions felt that the determination could have an adverse impact on public servants. Firstly, because of the status of the information that may be disclosed. Secondly, because of the relationship between the recipient of the information and the subject, that is, the recipient is the employer. Thus in the public sector unions' view the potential impact is far broader. Finally, it was stated that the determination does not take into account the differing standards of conduct required of public servants in different positions within the service.

The Public Sector Union also queried the Director of Public Prosecutions' ability to determine whether the information they posses affects the fitness of an individual to fulfil the requirements of a particular position within the public service.

The unions also indicated that they could not see that a need for this information to be disclosed had been established. The PSU submitted that the existing accountability mechanisms were sufficient to protect the rights of the public.

 

4. Assessing the Case for the Proposed Practice

The Public Interest Test:

Under section 72 I am empowered to issue a determination permitting an act or practice which would otherwise breach the Act where I am satisfied that the public interest in the agency doing the act "outweighs to a substantial degree" the public interest in adhering to the Information Privacy Principle that is relevant (emphasis added).

This is, obviously, a difficult standard - especially because of its emphasis on the need for the act or practice to be shown to outweigh "to a substantial degree" the public interest in protecting privacy. In considering the application I have taken into account a number of factors:

• the potential for the proposed act or practice to harm the interests of individuals;
• the extent to which the proposed act or practice is inconsistent with an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy;
• the nature of the public interest objectives served by the proposed interference with privacy;
• the emphasis given to the need to balance competing interests contained in section 29; and
• the impact on the public interest if the proposed act or practice is not permitted.

The Director of Public Prosecution's concerns:

From the viewpoint of individual privacy, it is desirable that there be caution about permitting disclosures for disciplinary purposes. Disclosure of alleged conduct to a professional or licensing body could have a serious impact on a person's long-term future - in many instances a greater impact than having the matter proceed to, and be disposed of, by a criminal court. The sanctions available to a criminal court do not in themselves, normally, impede a person's ability to work or to continue in an occupation. Even in cases where an individual's work is interrupted by a gaol term it does not automatically follow that that person's ability to resume the job or occupation in which he or she was previously involved is impeded. Obviously from the point of view of rehabilitation of offenders (whether the offender has fulfilled a non-custodial order or a gaol sentence) it is important that an offender continue to have the capacity to earn a reasonable livelihood.

In its submissions to me, the applicant has indicated that it is mindful of these concerns, and regarded disclosure to disciplinary and similar bodies as an action which should only be taken in special circumstances. But equally the applicant feels that it had a public duty where serious concerns arose to ensure that relevant disciplinary authorities were informed of material in its possession that bore on the professional competence of an individual. Further it considers that in some circumstances the most effective way to deal with misconduct by an individual may not be to rely on criminal law sanctions but to activate the disciplinary process.

Need for Exception:

The information provided by the applicant as to the nature and extent of its existing practices in relation to the disclosure of information about individuals to disciplinary authorities and to public service bodies was, when this application was previously considered, criticised strongly by several of the interested parties. The Australian Privacy Foundation, the Communications Law Centre and the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties considered that

• the applicant should supply detailed particulars of the occasions, at least in the recent past, when it had provided file information to disciplinary authorities
• the applicant should clearly identify the specific disciplinary authorities to which it wished to communicate this information in future, and
• the applicant should not disclose to public service bodies.

In regard to the first two of these matters the applicant's representative was not on the earlier occasions able to provide information of the quality sought by the interested parties. However he had contacted a number of regional offices of the agency and obtained an account of recent examples of disclosure. It appeared from this information that the level of referral of material to disciplinary authorities was low. It was suggested that there were about ten cases a year. This needs to be viewed against the thousands of cases that the agency handles per year. For the most part the disclosures appeared to relate to apparent misconduct by people whose work was involved with the administration of justice (for example, solicitors); the administration of health care (for example, doctors); and the regulated finance industry occupations. There was one example which did not fit this pattern - a disclosure relating to a used car salesman made to a used car sellers registration board.

In regard to the third point, the main evidence was given by the Commonwealth Public Service Commission, who supported the applicant's submission.

Listing of All Permitted Recipients:

I consider that the classes of permitted recipients should not be restricted by a 'list' approach. The applicant should be allowed to disclose to any statutory licensing or disciplinary body; and to relevant public service bodies.

To adopt the alternative suggestion made previously by the interested parties (the list approach) would be impractical. This approach would be productive of confusion for the agency and create a constant need to consider amending and varying the list, as federal and state legislation changes. This would lead to two possibilities, either continual re-applications to me for variation of the determination or, worse, a tendency to circumvent this determination in hard cases.

In discussing the issue of permitted recipients, it was argued on the earlier occasions by the interested parties that any disclosure authority given to the applicant should not extend to employers. The applicant had asked for it to be allowed to disclose information, in appropriate cases, to appropriate Commonwealth authorities in relation to Commonwealth employees. The interested parties opposed the submission because of the degree of prejudice that could flow to an individual from unfair disclosure; or from the disclosure of information which was later contradicted or not given weight in court proceedings. These are, I acknowledge, important concerns.

The unions questioned the ability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to make an informed judgement about the relevance of alleged criminal conduct to the performance of a public service position. They pointed to the variety of public service positions, and the specialised nature of many of them.

These are understandable concerns but it seems to me that the most likely situation in which the Director of Public Prosecutions would be considering referral of information is where the crime alleged intersects in some way with the performance of a job. If that is the case then the ordinary processes of case-management would lead to the Director's staff acquiring a specific understanding of the job in issue. If my view is correct, then I believe that there is little danger of an uninformed decision being made. In any event, I would expect the Director of Public Prosecutions to have regard to the specifics of the job being performed by the public servant before making a decision to disclose.

I also acknowledge the unions' concern that any public service related disclosure would be made direct to the employer. In contrast, in the occupational regulation situation the disclosure is made to a regulatory body and would not - at least initially - become known to the employer or colleagues of the individual. I accept that there is always a danger of more harm to privacy being caused to public servants because of the fact that the employer (that is, the department head) is also the disciplining authority. The Director of Public Prosecutions is, I believe, experienced in respecting sensitivities of this kind. I would expect him to exercise special care in disclosing information about public servants, to ensure that only those in the relevant area of the agency (for example, discipline or investigations) were privy to the disclosure.

I am also mindful of the views put by the agency and the representative of the Public Service Commission, in support, that public service bodies are in fact authorities responsible for the implementation of statutory disciplinary procedures. Furthermore, there is a reasonable expectation among the general community that public servants should behave in a way that does not involve the abuse of public trust. I consider that it is appropriate to allow public service bodies to be provided with the relevant information relating to the conduct of an individual currently in their employ.

General Conclusion:

While I note that the Director of Public Prosecutions' perceived need to disclose material to other authorities rarely arises in practice I consider that there are important situations where it would be critical to the protection of reasonable public interests for a disciplinary or registering body to be warned at an early stage about an individual's alleged conduct. The most obvious example relates to situations where the individual holds a position which involves the care or treatment of vulnerable populations (such as children or disabled people) and the allegations involve offences of violence against that population. This view was strongly supported by the NSW Department of Health Medical Complaints Unit at the most recent statutory conference. Another fairly obvious example relates to allegations of large scale fraud involving trust accounts by a solicitor. It could not, I believe, be reasonably argued that an agency such as the Director of Public Prosecutions should be prevented from making appropriate disclosures in circumstances of this kind. Individuals in positions of trust can not, I feel, reasonably argue on privacy grounds that (alleged or proven) serious misconduct should not be made known to relevant disciplinary authorities.

The applicant has indicated that where it feels that there is a need to disclose adverse information it did so in a restrained and careful way.

My view is that the applicant should be allowed to disclose to appropriate authorities information which has direct relevance to a person's fitness to perform a profession, occupation or activity and which might not otherwise be available to authorities with relevant authority.

 

5. Safeguards:

I consider that safeguards should apply to ensure that the power is not used inappropriately. In that regard I shall examine: to whom the disclosure can be made; what can be disclosed; and how it can be disclosed.

Permitted Recipients:

I have given some thought as to whether it would be appropriate in light of the case examples given by the Director of Public Prosecutions information to restrict the scope of any disclosure discretion to allow it only to be exercised in respect of certain licensed or regulated occupations. One possibility that I considered was to restrict the disclosures to apparent misconduct related to occupations which were connected with the administration of justice, health care or the finance industry.

Ultimately I have come to the view that a restriction on the class of occupations which may be subject to disclosure, and as a consequence a restriction on the class of permitted recipients, would prove to be contrary to the public interest. If a legislature has seen fit to submit an occupation to licensing or similar disciplinary arrangements, one would expect that the justification (at least in part) stemmed from a concern to protect the public against abuses such as misuse of professional position, incompetence and breach of trust. While I consider that these concerns are most strongly felt in relation to occupations connected with the administration of justice, health care and the finance industry, it is conceivable that some regulated occupations of significance to the community fall outside these categories. One occupation which immediately comes to mind is that of registered teachers; others are pilots and builders.

In the case of public service employees the applicant initially focused on the need to be permitted to make disclosures to appropriate Commonwealth employing bodies. The applicant has subsequently requested that the scope of any waiver should extend to State and Territory public service employment throughout Australia. Otherwise the situation might arise where the Director of Public Prosecutions would have differing powers of disclosure in relation to a public servant, simply on the basis of whether he or she was a Commonwealth officer or not. I agree with these views. A determination limited to Commonwealth public servants would have been viewed by many as illogical. Consequently, this determination covers public service employees of the Commonwealth; State; Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. As such it does not cover statutory authorities; government business enterprises and local government bodies.

Criteria for Disclosure; Contents of Information Disclosed; Manner of Disclosure:

Because of the liberality of my views in relation to who can be given adverse information, I feel that it is important to ensure relative strict safeguards apply to the nature of the information disclosed and the manner of disclosure. Consequently I have sought to impose controls

I have indicated in the determination that the agency should only disclose personal information of the kind enumerated in Condition 2 in circumstances where the agency concludes reasonably the alleged conduct of which the agency has become aware is "serious" and is "directly relevant" to a licensing body or a public service authority. It seems to me that this approach meets most of the concerns that arise as to the possible misuse of such a power. The applicant must apply an objective standard of reasonableness to the information in its possession. That information must be serious and it must be of a kind which is directly relevant to the capacity of the individual to continue to be a member of the relevant licensed occupation or the public service.

In determining the appropriateness of disclosure I would expect the agency to inform itself as to the powers of the body to which it proposes to disclose information and to make a careful and sensible assessment of the nature of the information in its possession as it relates to the business of the particular regulatory body. In particular there needs to be some reasonable connection between the conduct which has come to the attention of the applicant and the kind of conduct which is relevant to the effective performance of the responsibilities of the particular occupation. The mere fact that someone is alleged to have, or has been found to have, broken the law would not be enough to justify disclosure.

Some of the conditions attached to the determination do not require special comment. Their purpose is I feel self-evident. My remaining comments relate only to those aspects of the conditions which I feel require further explanation.

Condition (2): Contents of Information Disclosed:-

The agency did not oppose the view that some limit should be placed on the records from which a disclosure could be made. While the interested parties have not so far expressed their concerns clearly in this regard, I take it to be the case that they are worried about the possibility of highly speculative information (sometimes described as information of "low quality") connecting an individual to misconduct being disclosed.

Examples of records of this kind are found in intelligence records held by police which may sometimes appear in the agency's prosecution file. I agree with the view that it would be undesirable (there was no suggestion from the applicant to the contrary) that this sort of information should be passed to an external body. Otherwise it seems to me that no unduly strict limit should be placed on the records from which the information to be disclosed should be drawn. I have listed the categories of records which may be the subject of disclosure in Condition 2. I acknowledge that some of these records are, in any case, in the public domain and really the agency is simply drawing attention to this material. It would be open to a licensing body or a public service body to take account of that information in any event.

Some of the material, however, belongs to the private files of the agency. In the case of criminal history records I have sought to be more prescriptive than were either the agency in its proposal or the interested parties in their proposals. It will be seen that I have sought to confine the dissemination of criminal history information to "relevant" information and so as not to contravene any law on spent convictions. This point becomes particularly relevant in cases where the applicant has elected not to take a matter to trial or in cases where no conviction was obtained. It may well be that the "criminal record" information is old and out-of-date and its contents have no appropriate relevance to what should be the current thinking of a disciplinary body. I would certainly regard disclosure of old criminal history material in these circumstances as highly questionable.

Conditions (3) and (4): Manner of Disclosure:-

A number of the conditions of this determination deal with how the disclosure should proceed. Condition 3 deals with the need to give an individual a reasonable opportunity to comment on the agency's disclosure to a disciplinary authority. This condition provides, I believe, a very significant safeguard of individual privacy as it gives an individual a real opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the information and the appropriateness of alerting a disciplinary authority or public service employer to questions about the individual's fitness.

Condition (8): Logging:-

In addition the agency's Privacy Contact Officer is asked to keep a log of disclosure activities. The Privacy Commissioner proposes to include in his annual report a section dealing with the operation of public interest determinations, which will include references to the operation of these conditions. This should go some way to meeting the concerns expressed by interested parties over the lack of adequate information about these practices at the moment.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

 

A: Submissions B: Notice of Application C: Organisations sent copy of the draft determination

Note: These attachments are not being distributed routinely, but are held with the original determination and are available on request from:

Privacy Branch Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Phone: (02) 9229 7600

ATTACHMENT A

 

SUBMISSIONS

(i) Department of Industrial Relations dated 18 December 1989;

(ii) Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of South Australia dated 11 January 1990;

(iii) Communications Law Centre, NSW dated 15 January 1990;

(iv) Acting Attorney-General, Northern Territory dated 18 January 1990;

(v) Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories dated 19 January 1990;

(vi) NSW Bar Association dated 30 January 1990;

(vii) Privacy Foundation dated 19 January 1990;

(viii) NSW Department of Health, Medical Complaints Unit dated 12 April 1991;

(ix) Department of Social Security dated 2 May 1991.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

(i) Office of the Attorney-General, Northern Territory dated 9 January 1990;

(ii) Ministry for Police and Emergency Services, Victoria dated 10 January 1990;

(iii) Law Institute of Victoria dated 10 January 1990;

(iv) Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce dated 10 January 1990;

(v) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade dated 11 January 1990;

(vi) Public Interest Advocacy Centre, NSW dated 11 January 1990;

(vii) Law Society of New South Wales dated 11 January 1990;

(viii) Prices Surveillance Authority dated 12 January 1990;

(ix) Minister for Justice, WA dated 12 January 1990;

(x) Department of Premier and Cabinet, Tasmania dated 12 January 1990;

(xi) Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development, QLD dated 15 January 1991;

(xii) Mental Health Advocacy Service, NSW dated 15 January 1990;

(xiii) Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department dated 15 January 1990;

(xiv) Department of Veteran's Affairs dated 16 January 1990;

(xv) Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet dated 17 January 1990;

(xvi) Australian Archives dated 17 January 1990; (xvii) Commonwealth Banking Corporation dated 18 January 1990;

(xiii) Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department received on 22 January 1990;

(xix) Department of Aboriginal Affairs dated 22 January 1990;

(xx) Department of Justice, Tasmania dated 22 January 1990;

(xxi) Commonwealth Public Service Commission dated 25 January 1990;

(xxii) Law Society of South Australia dated 25 January 1990;

(xxiii) Department of Administrative Services dated 29 January 1990; and

(xxiv) Attorney General's Department, NSW dated 30 January 1990.

ATTACHMENT C

 

ORGANISATIONS SENT COPY OF DRAFT DETERMINATION

Premier of New South Wales

Attorney-General NSW

Attorney-General's Department NSW

Minister for Police and Emergency Service NSW

ACT Government Law Office

Attorney-General's Department ACT

Government Premier of South Australia

Attorney-General SA

Attorney-General's Department SA

Minister for Police SA

Premier of Victoria Attorney-General VIC

Attorney-General's Department VIC

Minister for Police and Emergency Services VIC

Premier of Queensland Attorney-General QLD

Department of Justice QLD

Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development QLD

Minister for Police QLD

Minister for Justice and Corrective Services QLD

Premier of Tasmania

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice TAS

Department of Justice TAS

Minister for Police and Emergency Services TAS

Department of Premier and Cabinet TAS

Premier of Western Australia

Attorney-General WA

Attorney-General's Department WA

Minister for Police WA

Minister for Justice WA

Chief Minister NT

Department of Law NT

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ACT

Attorney-General's Department ACT Australian Archives ACT

Australian Taxation Office ACT

Australian War Memorial ACT

Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories ACT

Department of Administrative Services ACT

Department of Community Services and Health ACT

Department of Defence ACT

Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ACT

Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce ACT

Department of Education, Employment and Training ACT

Department of Finance ACT

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ACT

Department of Industrial Relations ACT

Department of Primary Industries and Energy ACT

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ACT

Department of Social Security ACT

Department of Transport and Communications ACT

Department of Veterans' Affairs ACT

The Treasury ACT

Prices Surveillance Authority VIC

Public Service Commission ACT

Australian Chamber of Commerce ACT

Melbourne Chamber of Commerce VIC

Queensland Chamber of Commerce QLD

Sydney Chamber of Commerce NSW

Perth Chamber of Commerce WA

Australian Stock Exchange Ltd NSW

Australian Bankers Association VIC

Insurance Council of Australia (Inc) VIC

Business Council of Australia VIC

Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies ACT

Australian Finance Conference NSW

Confederation of Australian Industry VIC

Australian Council for Civil Liberties

Tasmanian Council for Civil Liberties

NSW Council for Civil Liberties

South Australian Council for Civil Liberties

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties

Victorian Council for Civil Liberties

Western Australian Council for Civil Liberties

Public Interest Advocacy Centre NSW

Communications Law Centre NSW

VIC Australian Privacy Foundation NSW

Law Society of Northern Territory

Law Society of Tasmania

Law Society of Western Australia

Law Society of South Australia

Law Society of the ACT

ACT Bar Association

Law Society of NSW

NSW Bar Association

Law Institute of Victoria

Law Foundation of Victoria

Victorian Bar Council Queensland

Law Society Bar Association of Queensland

NSW Department of Health, Complaints Unit

Australian Medical Association ACT

Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders Darwin

Prisoners Association NT

Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of South Australia

Outcare WA

Mental Health Advocacy Centre NSW

NSW Privacy Committee

Queensland Privacy Committee

South Australian Privacy Committee

Soft Law Community Projects Trades and Labour Council ACT

Trades and Labour Council of the Northern Territory

Trades and Labour Council of Queensland

Trades Hall South Australia

Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia

Labour Council of New South Wales

South Coast Labour Council NSW

Victorian Trades Hall Council

Australian Council of Trade Unions VIC

Public Sector Union NSW

Custom Officers Association NSW

Queensland Teachers Union

Tasmanian Teachers Federation

Teachers Federation of Victoria

South Australian Institute of Teachers

State School Teachers Union of Western Australia

Northern Territory Teachers Federation

State Public Service Federation (in each state)

Municipal Officers Association VIC

Australian Telecommunications Employees Association VIC

Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union VIC

Professional Officers Association NSW and VIC