Footnotes

[1] Note that although the terms of reference refer to the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, the office is now referred to as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Similarly, the Federal Privacy Commissioner is now known as the Privacy Commissioner. This report uses the title the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner, but it is noted that some submissions, quoted in the report, refer to the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner and the Federal Privacy Commissioner.

[2] Journals of the Senate, No. 11, 9 December 2004, p. 286.

[3] ALRC and NHMRC, Essentially Yours: Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia, ALRC 96, 2003, available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/

[4] Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Getting in on the Act: The Review of the Private Sector Provisions of the Privacy Act 1988, March 2005 (OPC review), available at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/review/index.html

[5] The Law Reform Commission, Privacy, ALRC Report No. 22, Volume 1, 1983, p. 10.

[6] Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, 1890, 'The Right to Privacy', 4 Harvard Law Review 193; see also Malcolm Crompton, former Federal Privacy Commissioner, "Proof of ID Required? Getting Identity Management Right", Speech to the Australian IT Security Forum, 30 March 2004, p. 2, http://www.privacy.gov.au/news/speeches/sp1_04p.pdf (accessed 24 May 2005).

[7] Zelman Cowen, 1969, "The Private Man", The Boyer Lectures, Australian Broadcasting Commission, pp 9-10 from Malcolm Crompton, former Federal Privacy Commissioner, "Proof of ID Required? Getting Identity Management Right", Speech to the Australian IT Security Forum, 30 March 2004, p. 2, http://www.privacy.gov.au/news/speeches/sp1_04p.pdf (accessed 24 May 2005).

[8] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 14.

[9] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 2.

[10] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 2.

[11] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 51.

[12] Submission 32, p. 6.

[13] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 4; see also Submission 33, p. 2.

[14] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 10.

[15] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 4.

[16] Mr Andrew Want, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 2.

[17] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 12.

[18] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 12-13.

[19] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 17.

[20] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 51.

[21] See further Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, Privacy and the Private Sector: Inquiry into Privacy Issues, including the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998, March 1999, pp 42-51.

[22] OPC, The Operation of the Privacy Act Annual Report: 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004, p. 84. The OECD guidelines are available at: www.oecd.org.

[23] OPC review, p. 46.

[24] Directive 95/46/EC.

[25] See especially articles 25 and 26. See further Nigel Waters, 'The European influence on privacy law and practice', Privacy Law and Policy Report, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2003, pp 150-155; Peter Ford, 'Implementing the EC Directive on Data Protection – an outside perspective' Privacy Law and Policy Report, Vol. 9, No. 8, 2003, pp 141-149.

[26] Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP, Second Reading Speech, Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, Hansard, 12 April 2000, p. 15749.

[27] See further http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/adequacy_en.htm (accessed 9 February 2005).

[28] NHMRC, Submission 20, Attachment D, p. 1.

[29] Mr Bill O'Shea, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 14, 19.

[30] See, for example, Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33, p. 4; and Mr Bill O'Shea, Law Institute of Victoria, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 14, 19.

[31] [2003] QDC 151. See also Greg Heaton, 'Privacy – boldly going where defamation hasn't gone before', Media & Arts Law Review, vol. 9 no. 4, pp 295- 316.

[32] ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199. See further Dr Robert Dean, 'A Right to privacy', Australian Law Journal, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 114- 125; Greg Heaton, 'Privacy – boldly going where defamation hasn't gone before', Media & Arts Law Review, vol. 9 no. 4, pp. 295- 316; see also Morag Donaldson, 'Do Australians have a legal right to privacy?', Parliamentary Library Research Note, 14 March 2005, no. 37 2004-05.

[33] See, for example, the table of legislation in NHMRC, Submission 20, Attachment D, p. 2.

[34] See further OPC, Federal Privacy Law History, at http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/history/index.html (accessed 9 February 2005).

[35] Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams AM QC MP, Second Reading Speech, Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, Hansard, 12 April 2000, p. 15749.

[36] See especially Privacy Act, ss. 17 and 18.

[37] OPC, The Operation of the Privacy Act Annual Report: 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004, pp 84-85.

[38] Privacy Act, ss. 27, 28 and 28A.

[39] See further: http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/guidelines/index.html.

[40] Privacy Act, ss. 6C-6EA.

[41] Privacy Act, s. 7C.

[42] Privacy Act, s. 7B(3).

[43] Privacy Act, s. 7B(4).

[44] Roy Morgan Research for the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, Community Attitudes Towards Privacy, 18 June 2004, http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/rcommunity04.pdf (accessed 9 February 2005); see also OPC review, Appendix 6.

[45] Ibid, Executive Summary, p. 1.

[46] Submission 38, p. 8. Other aspects of the ADMA's research are considered in the discussion in relation to direct marketing in Chapter 4 of this report.

[47] Roy Morgan Research for the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, Community Attitudes Towards Privacy, 18 June 2004, Executive Summary, p. 2, at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/rcommunity04.pdf (accessed 9 February 2005).

[48] Roy Morgan Research for the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, Community Attitudes Towards Privacy, 18 June 2004, Executive Summary, p. 2, at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/rcommunity04.pdf (accessed 9 February 2005).

[49] Roy Morgan Research for the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, Community Attitudes Towards Privacy, 18 June 2004, Executive Summary, p. 3, at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/rcommunity04.pdf (accessed 9 February 2005).

[50] Roy Morgan Research for the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, Community Attitudes Towards Privacy, 18 June 2004, Executive Summary, p. 3, at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/rcommunity04.pdf (accessed 9 February 2005).

[51] OPC review, Appendix 6.

[52] See, for example, Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 6; LIV, Submission 37, pp 5-6.

[53] ALRC, Submission 18, p. 7.

[54] See, for example, Australian Consumers' Association, Submission 15, p. 1; APF, Submission 32, pp 10-11; LIV, Submission 37, p. 5; Mr Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p. 2; EFA, Submission 17, p. 7.

[55] See, for example, Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, pp 3-4.

[56] See, for example, Mr Roger Clarke, Submission 28, pp 2, 4.

[57] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 41; see also Submission 17, p. 7.

[58] Submission 28, p. 1.

[59] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 15.

[60] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 12.

[61] Submission 15, p. 1.

[62] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 22.

[63] Michael Kirby, 'Privacy in Cyberspace' (1998) 21 University of New South Wales Law Journal 323; see also Submission 24, p. 3.

[64] See, for example, Sony, Submission 14, pp 1-2; FIA, Submission 3, p. 3; ANZ, Submission 6, p. 5; APF, Submission 32, p. 10; Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 11; ADMA, Submission 38, pp 3 and 6; see also Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies, Cookie Monsters? Privacy in the Information Society, November 2000, pp 57-61.

[65] Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, Revised Explanatory Memorandum, p. 10.

[66] Submission 32, p. 10.

[67] Submission 43, p. 11.

[68] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 24.

[69] Submission 28, p. 2.

[70] Submission 37, p. 9.

[71] Submission 37, p. 9.

[72] See, for example, Fundraising Institute Australia (FIA), Submission 3, p. 4; ADMA, Submission 28, p. 7.

[73] See, for example, Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 3; EFA, Submission 17, pp 32-33; APF, Submission 32, p. 7. Note that it was also suggested that the definitions of 'health information' and 'sensitive information' should be amended expressly to include human genetic information. This will be discussed further later in this chapter. See also see also Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies, Cookie Monsters? Privacy in the Information Society, November 2000, pp 61-65.

[74] Submission 32, p. 7; see also Dr Anthony Place, Submission 22, p. 2.

[75] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 14.

[76] Submission 17, p. 32.

[77] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 41-42; see also EFA, Submission 17A, pp 3-4.

[78] Submission 17, p. 33.

[79] Submission 17A, p. 5.

[80] Submission 17A, p. 5.

[81] See, for example, ADMA, Submission 38, p. 5; Hitwise, Submission 47, p. 4.

[82] Hitwise is a company which provides a website-usage analysis service: see Hitwise, Submission 47.

[83] Submission 47, p. 4 cf EFA, Submission 17A, pp 7-8.

[84] Submission 47, p. 4.

[85] See, for example, Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33, p. 5; LIV, Submission 37, p. 5; APF, Submission 32, p. 11.

[86] Submission 32, p. 11.

[87] Submission 37, pp 6-7.

[88] Submission 37, p. 7.

[89] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 16.

[90] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 45-46. Note also that the issue of funding and resourcing of the OPC is discussed in further detail later in this report.

[91] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 55.

[92] OPC review, p. 256.

[93] OPC review, p. 256.

[94] OPC review, pp 239-257.

[95] OPC review, Recommendation 69, p. 257.

[96] OPC review, Recommendation 71, p. 257.

[97] OPC review, Recommendation 73, p. 257.

[98] See further Michael Walters, "Smart cards and privacy", Privacy Law and Policy Reporter, Vol. 1 No. 8, 1994, p. 143; Darren Baguley, "Card sharps", The Bulletin, v. 121 (6373), 20 May 2003, pp 68-69; See also, for example, Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, pp 2-3; Lockstep Consulting, Submission 11, p. 5.

[99] Submission 37, p. 10.

[100] See, for example, Lockstep Consulting, Submission 11, p. 8; Sony Business Solutions, Submission 14, pp 1-2; see also Privacy International and Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy and Human Rights 2004: an International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments, 2004, http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2004 (accessed 23 February 2005).

[101] See, for example, ACA, Submission 15, pp 9-10; EFA, Submission 17, pp 19 and 24; LIV, Submission 37, p. 10.

[102] See, for example, Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 3; Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association (AEEMA), Submission 26, p. 1; Lockstep Consulting, Submission 11, pp 2 and 5.

[103] Submission 11, p. 1.

[104] Submission 11, p. 5.

[105] Submission 33, p. 4.

[106] See, for example NHMRC, Submission 20, p. 4; LIV, Submission 37, p. 10; Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 5; Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 3.

[107] Submission 17, p. 25.

[108] See, for example, LIV, Submission 37, p. 10; also EFA, Submission 17, p. 23.

[109] Submission 37, p. 10.

[110] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 17.

[111] AEEMA, Submission 26, p. 1; Centre for Law and Genetics Submission 24, p. 3.

[112] EFA, Submission 17, pp 19-23; Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, pp 5-6 and Appendix 1.

[113] Submission 17, p. 19.

[114] Submission 17, p. 19.

[115] Submission 17, p. 20.

[116] See for example, AEEMA, Submission 26, p. 1; Sony, Submission 14, pp 1-2; see also Rotenberg, M. and Laurant, C., Privacy International and Electronic Privacy Information Center, Privacy and Human Rights 2004: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments, 2004, available at: http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2004 (accessed 23 February 2005).

[117] Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 5; Mr David Travis, Submission 23, p. 2.

[118] Submission 15, p. 9.

[119] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 17.

[120] See, for example, Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 5; Mr David Travis, Submission 23, p. 2; AEEMA, Submission 26, p. 1.

[121] ACA, Submission 15, p. 7; see also Mr Charles Britton, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 27.

[122] Submission 15, pp 7-8.

[123] Submission 32, p. 10.

[124] Submission 32, p. 10.

[125] Submission 32, p. 10.

[126] EFA, Submission 17, pp 29-30; LIV, Submission 37, p. 11.

[127] Submission 17, pp 29-30.

[128] Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 55; see also Attorney-General's Department, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 64.

[129] Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2005, p. 86.

[130] Estimates Hansard, 23 May 2005, p. 87.

[131] Submission 34, pp 13-14.

[132] See for example, LIV, Submission 37, p. 10; AMA, Submission 9, p. 6; EFA, Submission 17, pp 22-24.

[133] Submission 9, p. 6; see also LIV, Submission 37, p. 10.

[134] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 16.

[135] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 46.

[136] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 47.

[137] Submission 17, p. 24.

[138] Submission 8, p. 6.

[139] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 22; also pp 16, 21.

[140] Submission 34B, p. 2.

[141] Submission 34B, p. 2.

[142] Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 55; see also Submission 48, p. 14.

[143] Submission 48, p. 14.

[144] Submission 17, p. 23.

[145] EFA, Submission 17, pp 19 and 22-23.

[146] Submission 17, p. 22.

[147] See, for example, Ms Irene Graham, EFA, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 48-49; Mr Bill O'Shea, LIV, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 17.

[148] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 17; see also Misha Schubert, "New smartcards could keep track of welfare", The Age, 21 April 2005, p. 3.

[149] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 14.

[150] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 32-33 cf OPC, Submission 48, p. 15.

[151] "Privacy fears over health, welfare card", Australian Financial Review, 16 June 2005, p. 3.

[152] "New smartcards could keep track of welfare", The Age, 21 April 2005, p. 3.

[153] See further Malcolm Crompton, "Biometrics and Privacy", Privacy Law and Policy Reporter, vol 9, no 3, July 2002, pp 53-58; and vol 9 no 4, August 2002, pp 68-73.

[154] ACA, Submission 15, p. 12; Dr Anthony Place, Submission 22, p. 4.

[155] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, pp 16-17; cf Sony Business Solutions, Submission 14, p. 2; also Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 7, and Attachment 2; APF, Submission 32, Annex D, p. 1; Roger Clarke, Submission 28. See further Malcolm Crompton, "Biometrics and Privacy", Privacy Law and Policy Reporter, vol 9, no 3, July 2002, p. 54.

[156] Submission 32, Annex D, p. 1.

[157] AEEMA, Submission 26, p. 2; see further Malcolm Crompton, “Biometrics and Privacy: The end of the world as we know it or the white knight of privacy?” Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol 36, 2004, pp 49-58.

[158] ACA, Submission 15, p. 12; Lockstep Consulting, Submission 11, pp 2, 12-19; LIV, Submission 37, p. 11.

[159] Submission 37, p. 11.

[160] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 15.

[161] Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 7; Lockstep Consulting, Submission 11, p. 18.

[162] Submission 11, p. 18.

[163] Submission 11, p. 18.

[164] Submission 26, p. 2.

[165] Submission 33, p. 4.

[166] Submission 20, p. 5.

[167] The proposal is still subject to government approval: DFAT, Submission 39, p. 3. There has also been some discussion about the October deadline being extend: DFAT, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 2.

[168] DFAT, Submission 39, pp 2-3; see also Morag Donaldson, Australian Passports Bill 2004, Parliamentary Library Bills Digest No. 75-77. 2004-2005, 7 December 2004, p. 5.

[169] Submission 39, p. 1.

[170] Submission 39, p. 2.

[171] Submission 39, p. 1.

[172] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 3.

[173] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 4.

[174] Section 47. Note that a determination under section 47 will be a disallowable instrument; see also DFAT, Submission 39, pp 3-4.

[175] Submission 39, p. 1.

[176] Submission 39, p. 4.

[177] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 2.

[178] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 2.

[179] Mr Timothy Pilgrim, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 55-56.

[180] Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 55.

[181] Submission 17, p. 29.

[182] EFA, Submission 17, pp 27-28; Mr Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p. 2.

[183] Submission 28, p. 2.

[184] Submission 17, p. 27.

[185] Submission 17, p. 27; see also ACA, Submission 15, p. 14.

[186] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 2-3.

[187] Submission 15, p. 12.

[188] Submission 15, p. 13; see also Ms Irene Graham, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 50; EFA, Submission 17, pp 28-29.

[189] Committee Hansard , 20 May 2005, p. 3.

[190] See further www.biometricsinstitute.org

[191] See, for example, ACA, Submission 15, pp 11-12; APF, Submission 32, Annex D; LIV, Submission 37, p. 5; Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33, p. 4; see further: http://www.privacy.gov.au/business/codes/index.html#3 (accessed 16 April 2005).

[192] Submission 32, Annex D, p. 2; see also ACA, Submission 15, p. 11.

[193] Submission 15, p. 1; see also Mr Charles Britton, ACA, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 24.

[194] Submission 15, p. 2.

[195] Submission 15, p. 11.

[196] OPC review, Recommendation 73, p. 257.

[197] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998, March 1999. Note that the Bill still stands on the Senate Notice Paper, having been restored to the Notice Paper after each Federal election that has occurred since the Bill was originally introduced.

[198] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998, March 1999, p. 1.

[199] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998, March 1999, p. 39.

[200] ALRC and NHMRC, Essentially Yours: Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia, ALRC 96, 2003; see also ALRC Submission 18, p. 2; and NHMRC, Submission 20, p. 6.

[201] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 10.

[202] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 37.

[203] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 37.

[204] ALRC, Submission 18, p. 2.

[205] See, for example, Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 5; Professor Don Chalmers, Centre for Law and Genetics, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 8; Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, Submission 12, p. 3; APF, Submission 32, p. 12; OPC, Submission 48, p. 9.

[206] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 19-20.

[207] Submission 12, p. 3.

[208] See, for example, Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33A, pp 1-2; Anti‑Discrimination Board of New South Wales, Submission 12, pp 5-6; ALRC, Submission 18, pp 2-8; Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, pp 7-10.

[209] Submission 12, p. 3.

[210] See also APF, Submission 32, p. 15; Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 21.

[211] Submission 18, pp 2-3; see also Professor David Weisbrot, ALRC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 43; NHMRC, Submission 20, p. 6.

[212] Submission 18, p. 3; see also Professor David Weisbrot, ALRC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 43.

[213] Submission 18, pp 4-5; see further Chapter 8 of the ALRC Essentially Yours report; see also Professor David Weisbrot, ALRC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 43.

[214] Submission 13, p. 3.

[215] Submission 5, p. 2.

[216] Submission 18, p. 5; see also Professor David Weisbrot, ALRC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 43.

[217] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 44.

[218] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 42.

[219] Submission 18, p. 8.

[220] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 41.

[221] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 41.

[222] See also Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33A, p. 2.

[223] Essentially Yours report, Chapter 35, especially Recommendations 35-1 to 35-12, pp 860-910; see also Professor David Weisbrot, ALRC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 40-41.

[224] Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 10; Cancer Council of NSW, Submission 2, pp 3‑4; Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, Submission 12, p. 2; LIV, Submission 37, pp 12-13; Mr Bill O'Shea, LIV, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 15.

[225] Submission 2, p. 4.

[226] Submission 2, p. 3.

[227] Submission 2, p. 4.

[228] Professor Don Chalmers, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 11.

[229] Essentially Yours, p. 312; see also the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, Submission 12, p. 2.

[230] Submission 12, p. 6.

[231] Productivity Commission, Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Inquiry Report No. 30, 20 April 2004, Volume 1, pp 300-301 and 304, Recommendation 11.1.

[232] See, for example, NHMRC, Submission 20, p. 6; Cancer Council of NSW, Submission 2, p. 3; Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, pp 5-7; Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33, p. 5; APF, Submission 32, p. 12; Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, Submission 12, p. 8; LIV, Submission 37, p. 12; see also Ms Anna Johnston, APF, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 19; Professor Don Chalmers and Dr Dianne Nicol, Centre for Law and Genetics, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 8 and 11.

[233] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 44; see also ALRC, Submission 18, p. 1.

[234] See, for example, AMA, Submission 9, p. 7; LIV, Submission 37, p. 12; NHMRC, Submission 20, p. 6.

[235] Submission 20, p. 6.

[236] Submission 18, p. 2.

[237] Submission 34, p. 18; see also Submission 34A, p. 3.

[238] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 39.

[239] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 37.

[240] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 59.

[241] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 37-38.

[242] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 39-40.

[243] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 39-40.

[244] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 9.

[245] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 28.

[246] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 31-32.

[247] Submission 34A, p. 3.

[248] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 40; see also ALRC, ALRC 96 Implementation at: http://www.alrc.gov.au/inquiries/title/alrc96/implementation.htm (accessed 31 May 2005).

[249] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 40-41.

[250] Attorney-General's Department, Government's response to the Productivity Commission's Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, p. 8 at http://www.ag.gov.au/PCDDA (accessed 7 June 2005).

[251] See term of reference (a)(ii)(D).

[252] See, for example, L Dolinar, "Implantable chips in humans get the nod", Sydney Morning Herald, 15 October 2004, p. 11.

[253] M James, "Where are you now? Location detection systems and personal privacy", Parliament Library Research Note No. 60 2003-04, 15 June 2004, p. 3.

[254] Submission 33A, p. 2.

[255] FDA clears Verichip for medical applications in the United States, http://www.4verichip.com/nws_10132004FDA.htm (accessed 1/02/2005).

[256] FDA clears Verichip for medical applications in the United States, http://www.4verichip.com/nws_10132004FDA.htm (accessed 1/02/2005).

[257] FDA clears Verichip for medical applications in the United States, http://www.4verichip.com/nws_10132004FDA.htm (accessed 1/02/2005).

[258] Submission 33A, p. 3; see also http://www.4verichip.com/verichipfuture.htm (accessed 2 June 2005). Indeed, there are some reports of other uses overseas of microchips implanted in humans for security and other purposes: see further: B Feder and T Zeller, "Identity Badge Worn Under Skin Approved For Use in Health Care", New York Times, October 14 2004; see also Electronic Privacy Information Center, "Verichip", http://www.epic.org/privacy/rfid/verichip.html (accessed 1/2/2005).

[259] Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p. 2; Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 10, p. 10; NHMRC, Submission 20, p. 7.

[260] Submission 20, p. 6.

[261] Submission 28, p. 2.

[262] Submission 28, p. 2.

[263] Submission 33A, p. 3. The relevant legislation is the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic).

[264] Submission 33A, pp 3-4.

[265] Lockstep Consulting, Submission 11, p. 21; AEEMA, Submission 26, p. 2.

[266] Submission 34, pp 19-20.

[267] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 56.

[268] See, for example, ACA, Submission 15, pp 4-5; EFA, Submission 17, pp 26-29; Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 6; Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33A, pp 2-4; also B Woodhead, "Electronic tags: are we next?", Australian Financial Review, 29 July 2003; M James, "Where are you now? Location detection systems and personal privacy", Parliament Library Research Note No. 60 2003-04, 15 June 2004, p. 3.

[269] Submission 33A, p. 2.

[270] Submission 15, p. 4.

[271] Submission 15, pp 4-5.

[272] Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner, Media Release: World's Privacy Regulators call for privacy friendly RFID tags, 9 December 2003, available at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/news/media/03_17.html (accessed 15 February 2005).

[273] See, for example, ACA, Submission 15, pp 2-7; EFA, Submission 17, pp 7-19; Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p. 3; Lockstep Consulting, Submission 11, p. 1; LIV, Submission 37, p. 9.

[274] Submission 42, p. 2; see also AFP, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 39-40; and Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Getting in on the Act: The Review of the Private Sector Provisions of the Privacy Act 1988, March 2005, p. 240.

[275] Submission 15, pp 2-7.

[276] See further Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Spyware, http://www.dcita.gov.au/ie/spyware (accessed 31 May 2005).

[277] Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Outcome of the Review of the Legislative Framework on Spyware, March 2005; See further http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/24939/Outcome_of_Review.pdf (accessed 31 May 2005).

[278] Submission 28, p. 3; see also see also Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies, Cookie Monsters? Privacy in the Information Society, November 2000.

[279] Submission 37, p. 9.

[280] Submission 37, p. 6.

[281] See, for example, AMA, Submission 9; Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, pp 12 and 15; Ms Pamela Burton, AMA, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 14.

[282] Submission 17, pp 9-14.

[283] Submission 17, p. 9.

[284] Submission 17, p. 9.

[285] Submission 32, p. 9; see also EFA, Submission 17, esp. Appendix 1; ACA, Submission 15, p. 2.

[286] Note: references to the 'private sector provisions' of the Privacy Act refer to those provisions contained in the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Act 2000.

[287] OPC review, Appendix 1.

[288] OPC review, pp 22-23.

[289] Submission 32B, p. 1.

[290] Submission 32B, p. 7.

[291] Available at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/review/ispap2004.pdf (accessed 23 March 2005).

[292] Available at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/review/reviewsub.html (accessed 23 May 2005).

[293] OPC review, p. 25; see also Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 47.

[294] Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 47; see also OPC review, p. 2.

[295] OPC review, p. 8.

[296] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 47.

[297] OPC review, p. 8.

[298] Submission 48, p. 6.

[299] Submission 48, p. 6.

[300] Senator Abetz is the Federal Minister responsible for the Australian Government Information Management Office and the Commonwealth's whole-of-government e-government agenda. Senator The Hon. Eric Abetz, Special Minister of State, Privacy Key in E-Government, media release A0523, 6 June 2005; see also James Riley, "Abetz calls for privacy review", The Australian, 7 June 2005, p. 30.

[301] Submission 32B, p. 2.

[302] Submission 32B, p. 2.

[303] See, for example, ANZ, Submission 6, pp 2-3; FIA, Submission 3, p. 4; Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 3.

[304] Submission 6, pp 2-3, 6.

[305] Submission 3, p. 4.

[306] See, for example, FIA, Submission 3, p. 7; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Submission 25, p. 2.

[307] See, for example, Ms Irene Graham, EFA, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 47.

[308] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 47.

[309] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 47.

[310] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 47. Note that industry privacy codes are considered further later in this chapter.

[311] APF, Submission 32, pp 15-18; EFA, Submission 17, pp 38-45; see also Mr Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p. 4 and Addendum.

[312] Submission 32, p. 12.

[313] Submission 17, p. 7.

[314] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 1.

[315] See, for example, Real Estate Institute of Australia, Submission 1, p. 2; FIA, Submission 3, p. 4; ANZ, Submission 6, pp 4-5; AMA, Submission 9, p. 3; Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR), Submission 13, p. 7; ACA, Submission 15, p. 14; Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 11; ACCI, Submission 25, p. 2; APF, Submission 32, p. 5; ADMA, Submission 38, p. 4.

[316] The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, former Attorney-General, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 April 2000, p. 15749.

[317] The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, former Attorney-General, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 April 2000, p. 15751; see also OPC review, p. 32.

[318] Submission 15, p. 15.

[319] Submission 32, p. 5.

[320] OPC review, Recommendations 2-16, pp 8-9.

[321] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[322] OPC review, Recommendation 2, pp 45, 48.

[323] OPC review, p. 45.

[324] OPC review, p. 45.

[325] OPC review, p. 45; and see also Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[326] Submission 32B, p. 4.

[327] OPC review, p. 45.

[328] See, for example, APF, Submission 32, p. 9; EFA, Submission 17, pp 7-17 and Appendix 1.

[329] Submission 17, Appendix 1, pp 48-54.

[330] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 42.

[331] OPC review, pp 49-62.

[332] OPC review, Recommendation 8, p. 63; see also APF, Submission 32B, p. 4.

[333] OPC review, Recommendations 10-11, p. 63.

[334] See, for example, APF, Submission 32, pp 8-9; Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, pp 4-5; NHMRC, Submission 20, pp 7-8 and Attachment D; see also Anna Johnston, APF, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 19; Mr Charles Britton, ACA, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 26; Professor Don Chalmers, Centre for Law and Genetics, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 9; Ms Pamela Burton, AMA, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 15.

[335] Submission 6, p. 5; see also ACA, Submission 15, p. 4.

[336] Submission 1, p. 2; see also OPC, Media Release: Tenancy database operator breaches the Privacy Act, 19 April 2004.

[337] Submission 1, p. 2; see also OPC, Media Release: Tenancy database operator breaches the Privacy Act, 19 April 2004.

[338] OPC review, Recommendations 14-16, pp 72-73.

[339] OPC review, p. 73.

[340] OPC review, Recommendation 14, p. 73.

[341] OPC review, Recommendation 15, p. 73; see also Recommendation 53.

[342] OPC review, Recommendation 16, p. 73.

[343] See, for example, EFA, Submission 17, p. 37; APF, Submission 32, p. 6; Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33, p. 4.

[344] APF, Submission 32, p. 6.

[345] Submission 32, p. 6.

[346] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 6.

[347] See, for example, EFA, Submission 17, p. 37; APF, Submission 32, p. 6; Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34¸ pp 21-22.

[348] Office of the Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand, Fact Sheet No. 1, A Guide to the Privacy Act 1993, at: http://www.privacy.org.nz/people/peotop.html (accessed 9 June 2005).

[349] OPC review, p. 46.

[350] OPC review, p. 46.

[351] OPC review, Recommendation 5, p. 48.

[352] Privacy Act, section 6D. However, note that there some exceptions: see subsections 6D(4)-(9).

[353] OPC review, p. 179.

[354] OPC review, p. 179.

[355] See, for example, Real Estate Institute of Australia, Submission 1, p. 3; ACCI, Submission 25, pp 4-7.

[356] Submission 1, p. 3.

[357] See, for example, Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 12; Dr Anthony Place, Submission 22, p. 4; EFA, Submission 17, pp 34-35; APF, Submission 32, p. 14; FIA, Submission 3, p. 9.

[358] Office of the Privacy Commissioner, New Zealand, Guidelines for Business, Frequently Asked Question, p. 3, at: http://www.privacy.org.nz/comply/The%20Privacy%20Act%20And%20Your%20Business.pdf (accessed 9 June 2005).

[359] See, for example, Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, p. 12; Dr Anthony Place, Submission 22, p. 4; EFA, Submission 17, pp 34-35.

[360] Submission 17, p. 34.

[361] Submission 32, p. 14.

[362] Submission 32, p. 14.

[363] Submission 3, p. 9.

[364] Submission 17, p. 35.

[365] Submission 18, p. 4.

[366] Submission 18, p. 4.

[367] Submission 25, pp 4-7.

[368] Submission 3, p. 9.

[369] Submission 32, pp 14-15.

[370] Submission 17, pp 34-35.

[371] OPC review, Recommendation 52, p. 185. See also Recommendations 9 and 15.

[372] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[373] OPC review, Recommendation 53, p. 185.

[374] OPC review, p. 185.

[375] OPC review, p. 185.

[376] OPC review, Recommendation 51, p. 185.

[377] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[378] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 49.

[379] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 49.

[380] Submission 32B, p. 6.

[381] Submission 32B, p. 5.

[382] The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, former Attorney-General, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 April 2000, p. 15752.

[383] Submission 8, pp 1-2.

[384] Submission 8, p. 4.

[385] See, for example, FIA, Submission 3, p. 9; ACA, Submission 15, p. 4.

[386] Submission 3, p. 9.

[387] Submission 9, p. 12.

[388] Submission 9, p. 12.

[389] Submission 32, p. 13.

[390] Submission 32, p. 13.

[391] Submission 32, p. 13.

[392] Submission 32, p. 13.

[393] OPC review, p. 197.

[394] OPC review, p. 195.

[395] Submission 32, p. 13.

[396] OPC review, Recommendation 58, p. 199.

[397] OPC review, Recommendation 59, p. 197.

[398] 'Employee records' are then defined in section 6 of the Privacy Act.

[399] The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, Attorney-General, Second Reading Speech, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 April 2000, p. 15752.

[400] See, for example, Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, Submission 12, p. 7; CCHE, Submission 21, p. 12; Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 7, and Attachment 4; APF, Submission 32, pp 12-13; Correspondence from Dr Jocelynne A. Scutt, 24 May 2005; Professor Don Chalmers, Centre for Law and Genetics, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 8. See also Professor Margaret Otlowski, 'Employment Sector By-Passed by the Privacy Amendments' (2001) 14 Australian Journal of Labour Law, 169-176.

[401] Submission 24, Attachment 4, p. 38.

[402] Submission 24, Attachment 4, p. 39.

[403] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 38.

[404] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 38.

[405] Submission 18, p. 7.

[406] Submission 18, p. 7; see also Professor David Weisbrot, ALRC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 38; and Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 7.

[407] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 38.

[408] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 38; see also ALRC, Submission 18, p. 7.

[409] Submission 12, p. 7; see also AEIA, Submission 16, pp 1-2.

[410] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 13.

[411] See, for example, Mr Bill O'Shea, LIV, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 22; Mr Paul Chadwick, Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 13; see also ANZ, Submission 6, p. 5.

[412] Submission 32, pp 12-13; see also Mr Bill O'Shea, Law Institute of Victoria, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 22.

[413] OPC review, Recommendation 4, p. 48

[414] Submission 32, p. 13.

[415] Attorney-General's Department Fact Sheet on Privacy in the Private Sector, Employee Records, 22 December 2000, at: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdHome.nsf/Page/Privacy_Law_Private_Sector_Fact_sheets_Employee_Records (accessed 3 June 2005).

[416] Submission 48, p. 7.

[417] The Hon Daryl Williams AM QC MP, Attorney-General, Second Reading Speech, House of Representatives Hansard, 12 April 2000, p. 15752.

[418] See for example, AMA, Submission 8, p. 13.

[419] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 9.

[420] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 9.

[421] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 9.

[422] Submission 9, pp 12-13.

[423] Submission 9, p. 13.

[424] Submission 32, p. 13.

[425] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 20; see also Mr David Vaile, APF, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 20.

[426] Submission 17, pp 35-36.

[427] Submission 17, p. 35.

[428] Submission 48, p. 10.

[429] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 57.

[430] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 58.

[431] Submission 49, p. 1.

[432] See, for example, Ms Mary Lander, Submission 19, p. 1; EFA, Submission 17, p. 37; APF, Submission 32, p. 19; Mr Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p. 8.

[433] Submission 17, p. 36.

[434] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 2.

[435] OPC review, p. 96.

[436] Submission 38, p. 12.

[437] Submission 38, p. 15.

[438] See further Attorney-General's Department Fact Sheet on Privacy in the Private Sector, Direct Marketing, 22 December 2000, at: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdHome.nsf/Page/Privacy_Law_Private_Sector_Fact_sheets_Direct_Marketing (accessed 5 May 2005); or OPC review, pp 94-95.

[439] See further Attorney-General's Department Fact Sheet on Privacy in the Private Sector, Direct Marketing, 22 December 2000, at: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdHome.nsf/Page/Privacy_Law_Private_Sector_Fact_sheets_Direct_Marketing (accessed 5 May 2005); or OPC review, pp 94-95.

[440] Submission 17, p. 36.

[441] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 31.

[442] See further Attorney-General's Department Fact Sheet on Privacy in the Private Sector, Direct Marketing, 22 December 2000, at: http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdHome.nsf/Page/Privacy_Law_Private_Sector_Fact_sheets_Direct_Marketing (accessed 5 May 2005); or OPC, Privacy Commissioner report, pp 94-95.

[443] Submission 17, p. 36.

[444] Submission 17, pp 36-37.

[445] See, for example, EFA, Submission 17, p. 37; APF, Submission 32, p. 19; Mr Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p. 8; Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, p. 3.

[446] See, for example, EFA, Submission 17, p. 36.

[447] Submission 32, p. 19.

[448] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 15.

[449] Miss Jodie Sangster, ADMA, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 32.

[450] Submission 38, p. 13.

[451] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 31.

[452] Submission 32, p. 19.

[453] Submission 6, p. 3.

[454] Submission 43, p. 13.

[455] Submission 43, p. 13.

[456] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 6.

[457] Submission 3, p. 5.

[458] See, for example, Ms Mary Lander, Submission 19, p. 1; see also Dr Anthony Place, Submission 22, p. 3.

[459] Mr Paul Chadwick, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 7; see also Submission 33, p. 5.

[460] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 7; see also Submission 33, p. 5.

[461] Submission 38, pp 4 & 16.

[462] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 31.

[463] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 31.

[464] OPC review, pp 94-103.

[465] OPC review, Recommendations 23-25, p. 103.

[466] See also Ms Karen Curtis, Privacy Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[467] APF, Submission 32, pp 9-10; LIV, Submission 37, p. 8.

[468] Submission 37, p. 9.

[469] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 15.

[470] Submission 37, pp 8-9.

[471] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 21.

[472] ADMA, Submission 38, p. 7; see also Miss Jodie Sangster, ADMA, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 36.

[473] Privacy Commissioner, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[474] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 21.

[475] See, for example, Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33, p. 2; LIV, Submission 37, p. 9; APF, Submission 32, p. 10; see also Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), APEC Privacy Framework, 2004/AMM/014rev1, endorsed by the 16th APEC Ministerial Meeting, Santiago, Chile, 17-18 November 2004, http://www.apec.org/apec/news___media/2004_media_releases/201104_apecminsendorseprivacyfrmwk.html (accessed 1 June 2005)

[476] Submission 32, p. 10; see also Submission 32, Annexure C.

[477] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 14.

[478] OPC review, p. 75.

[479] OPC review, p. 74; see also Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[480] OPC review, Recommendation 17, p. 76.

[481] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 50.

[482] Submission 32B, p. 2.

[483] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 63.

[484] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 63.

[485] OPC, Submission 48, p. 16; see also OPC review, p. 82; APF, Submission 32, pp 18-19.

[486] APF, Submission 32, p.18; EFA, Submission 17, pp 38-39.

[487] Submission 17, p. 38.

[488] Submission 32, p. 18.

[489] FIA, Submission 3, p. 7; ADMA, Submission 38, p. 10.

[490] FIA, Submission 3, p. 7.

[491] Submission 38, p. 10.

[492] Submission 43, p. 14; see also Mr Chris Gration, Baycorp Advantage, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 6 cf EFA, Submission 17, p. 41.

[493] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 7.

[494] Submission 32, p. 19.

[495] Submission 48, p. 17.

[496] OPC review, p. 92.

[497] OPC review, Recommendation 22, p. 93.

[498] Submission 48, p. 18.

[499] Submission 32B, p. 4; see also Ms Anna Johnston, APF, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, pp 20-21.

[500] Submission 25, p. 3.

[501] Submission 3, p. 8.

[502] Submission 15, pp 16-17.

[503] Submission 31, p. 4.

[504] OPC review, pp 171-175; see also Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 49.

[505] See Privacy Act, Part IIIAA. Concerns in relation to the use of codes of practice relating to particular technologies are outlined in the chapter on emerging technologies.

[506] Privacy Act, paragraph 18BB(2)(a).

[507] Available at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/guidelines/index.html#3.1 (accessed 30 May 2005).

[508] Submission 25, p. 7.

[509] Submission 25, p. 7.

[510] Submission 25, p. 7.

[511] FIA, Submission 3, p. 8.

[512] Submission 1, p. 2.

[513] Submission 38, p. 14.

[514] Submission 32, p. 21.

[515] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 47.

[516] Submission 32, p. 21.

[517] Submission 32, p. 22.

[518] Submission 15, p. 1; see also Mr Charles Britton, ACA, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 24.

[519] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[520] OPC review, Recommendation 47, p. 171; see also Ms Karen Curtis, OPC, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 48.

[521] Submission 32B, p. 5.

[522] OPC review, Recommendation 7, p. 48.

[523] OPC review, p. 47.

[524] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 49.

[525] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 27.

[526] See, for example, OPC review, Recommendations 74-84.

[527] See, for example, Ms Irene Graham, EFA, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 41; EFA, Submission 17, pp 13-14.

[528] APF, Submission 32, p. 15; EFA, Submission 17, p. 42.

[529] Submission 32, pp 15-16; see also EFA, Submission 17, p. 38.

[530] EFA, Submission 17, pp 39-40; APF, Submission 32, p 17, 18; see also OPC review, p. 84.

[531] APF, Submission 32, p. 17.

[532] EFA, Submission 17, p. 44; APF, Submission 32, p. 17.

[533] APF, Submission 32, p. 13; see also Privacy Act, section 16E.

[534] APF, Submission 32, p. 7; see also OPC review, pp 88-89.

[535] APF, Submission 32, p. 15.

[536] Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 12; see also Mr Andrew Want, Baycorp Advantage, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 6.

[537] APF, Submission 32, p. 20.

[538] APF, Submission 32, p. 17.

[539] This summary of Part IIIA and the Credit Reporting Code of Conduct is drawn from the OFPC website: http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/credit/index_print.html#key.

[540] Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31; Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35; CUSCAL, Submission 36; Consumers Federation of Australia, Submission 40; Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43; Australian Communication Exchange, Submission 41.

[541] Paragraph 18E(8)(c) of the Privacy Act, for example, prevents credit providers from disclosing an individual's personal information to a credit reporting agency if the credit provider did not inform the individual before or at the time the information was acquired that the information might be disclosed to a credit reporting agency.

[542] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 14-15; Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, p. 8 of the Attachment.

[543] APF, Submission 32, p. 4.

[544] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 14-16. See also the discussion in chapter 4 of this report on bundled consents.

[545] Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, pp 3 and 14.

[546] Submission 43, pp 7-8.

[547] See, for example, the figures cited in Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 5-6; Kirsty Needham, 'Bad debt files purged after privacy watchdog's finding', Sydney Morning Herald, 27 August 2004, p. 4; Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, pp 8-9.

[548] Section 18G of the Privacy Act requires credit reporting agencies to take reasonable steps to ensure that personal information contained in credit file or report is accurate, up-to-date, complete and not misleading. Privacy Principles also require record keepers not to use information without first taking steps to ensure that this is accurate.

[549] Ms Lorretta Kreet, Solicitor, Legal Aid Queensland, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 25.

[550] Catherine Wolthuizen, 'Reporting on the credit reporters', Consuming Interest, Autumn 2004, p. 7.

[551] Some suggest that the costs of such a service can act as a disincentive given the number of entities involved. See Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, p. 2.

[552] Mr Andrew Want, Baycorp Advantage Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Thursday, 19 May 2005, p. 2.

[553] This is notwithstanding section 18J of the Privacy Act which, for example, states that credit reporting agencies must make appropriate corrections, deletions and addition to ensure that the personal information contained in the file or report is accurate, up-to-date, complete and not misleading.

[554] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, p. 5. See also Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, pp 2-4. For example, IPP 8 requires record keepers not to 'use' information without first ensuring accuracy. However, it is suggested this does not prevent credit reporting agencies from accepting as opposed to using inaccurate information or records. Similarly, statutory requirements that credit reporting agencies 'take reasonable steps' to ensure accuracy of information they are provided with beg the question of what they can 'reasonably' do given the high volume of information that they handle. Baycorp's credit reporting databases hold 14 million credit reports and personal information on almost 90 per cent of the adult population of Australia. See Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 3; Mr Andrew Want, Baycorp Advantage, Committee Hansard, Thursday, 19 May 2005, p. 5.

[555] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 18-19. See also Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, p. 3.

[556] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, p. 2. See also Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission 32, p. 3.

[557] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 18-19. Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 32, p. 5. It is alleged that the OPC's complaints handling procedures deny consumers procedural fairness in that the OPC undertakes partial investigations of matters and then can decline to continue the investigation: that is, without consideration of all the evidence and without a final determination.

[558] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 18-19.

[559] Consumer groups, for example, cite advice from the OPC that, while it has the power to audit credit reporting agencies, it cannot force compliance where breaches of the Act are identified and that resources are insufficient to allow further audits to be taken. See, for example, Catherine Wolthuizen, 'Reporting on the credit reporters', Consuming Interest, Autumn 2004, p. 7.

[560] Mr Andrew Want, Baycorp Advantage Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Thursday, 19 May 2005, p. 5.

[561] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, p. 19.

[562] Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 10.

[563] Mr Andrew Want, Baycorp Advantage Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Thursday, 19 May 2005, pp 3, 5.

[564] Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, p. 2.

[565] Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 3.

[566] Copies of the relevant determinations are available on the OPC website at: http://www.privacy.gov.au/act/credit/deter1_02.html. It is suggested that access to credit reporting has now gone well beyond what was originally intended by those who enacted the legislation and who had sought to ensure access to credit reporting was very restricted. See Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, p. 2 of the Attachment.

[567] See, for example, Catherine Wolthuizen, 'Reporting on the credit reporters', Consuming Interest, Autumn 2004, p. 7. See also Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, pp 2-4 of the Attachment.

[568] Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, pp 7- 8. The Consumer Credit Legal Centre also cited instances where a default may be listed on a person's credit report despite the fact that they have disputed and are in fact still disputing liability for the debt. This, it is suggested, has the effect of coercing consumers to pay off the debt even though they may not be liable for it in order to have the listing removed and apply for credit. See Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 4, 8.

[569] See, for example, Submission 35, p. 10.

[570] See Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31; Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35; Consumers Federation of Australia, Submission 40.

[571] See, for example, Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, pp 6-9; Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35. See also: Catherine Wolthuizen, 'Reporting on the credit reporters', Consuming Interest, Autumn 2004, pp 7-8; Gabrielle Curtis, 'Consumer Watchdog calls for reform of credit blacklists', The Age, Saturday 8 May 2004, p. 7.

[572] See, for example, Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, p.3. See also OPC, Getting in on the Act: The Review of the Private Sector Provisions of the Privacy Act 1988, March 2005, p. 23. This exclusion was despite earlier media reports that the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Office had stated that a review of the credit reporting system would be undertaken. See The Age, Saturday, 8 May 2004, p. 7. The Commissioner's report states that the credit reporting provisions were considered where relevant to the operation of the private sector provisions. Her report at page 267 acknowledges the concerns raised by consumer representatives that adequate systems are not in place to ensure data quality of credit report listings.

[573] Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, pp 3, 6, 8. Credit Union Services Corporation, Submission 36, p.1.

[574] See section 18E of the Privacy Act. [Credit reports' contents are generally restricted to: personal details (name, address, employment, date of birth and driver's licence); previous credit applications; overdue payments (defaults) and serious credit infringements (such as non‑payment of debts); bankruptcies; court orders; and public information (such as directorships).]

[575] For example, information concerning the balance of credit accounts, amount of collateral and payment patterns.

[576] Mr Andrew Want, Baycorp Advantage Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Thursday, 19 May 2005, pp 3-4. See also Credit Union Services Corporation (Australia) Ltd, Submission 36, p 2.

[577] Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW), Submission 35, pp 11-14 See also Catherine Wolthuizen, 'Open Sesame!', Consuming Interest, Spring 2004, pp 15 -17. Catherine Wolthuizen, Australian Consumers Association, 'Self-interest gags credit reporting' Australian Financial Review 18 February 2005. Joyce Moullais, 'Baycorp baulks at credit check reforms', Australian Financial Review, 26 April 2005, p. 55.

[578] Mr Andrew Want, Baycorp Advantage Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Thursday, 19 May 2005, p. 3

[579] Joyce Moullais, 'Baycorp baulks at credit check reforms', Australian Financial Review, 26 April 2005, p. 55. See also Marc Moncrief, 'Debt experts clash over credit files', The Age, 11 April 2005, p. 3

[580] See sources at footnote 39.

[581] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, Attachment, p. 3.

[582] OPC review, p. 64.

[583] OPC review, p. 64.

[584] See, for example, Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, Attachment, p. 4.

[585] ‘Health’ information is defined by section 6 of the Privacy Act as:

(a) information or an opinion about: (i) the health or a disability (at any time) of an individual; or (ii) an individual's expressed wishes about the future provision of health services to him or her; or (iii) a health service provided, or to be provided, to an individual; that is also personal information; or

(b) other personal information collected to provide, or in providing, a health service; or

(c) other personal information about an individual collected in connection with the donation, or intended donation, by the individual of his or her body parts, organs or body substances.

The same section defines 'health information' as a specific type of personal information - ‘sensitive information about an individual’. The latter requires a more rigorous protection under that Act. For example, NPP 10 imposes restrictions on whether and how an organisation can collect health information about an individual and NPP 2 imposes stricter limits on how sensitive information may be used or disclosed than is the case for non-sensitive personal information. See Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 5.

[586] The Privacy Act stipulates providing a 'health service' includes any activity that involves: assessing, recording, maintaining or improving a person's health; or diagnosing or treating a person's illness or disability; or dispensing a prescription drug or medicinal preparation by a pharmacist. Health services therefore covered include traditional health service providers such as private hospitals and day surgeries, medical practitioners, pharmacists, and allied health professionals, as well as complementary therapists, gyms, weight loss clinics and many others. See OPC, Health Information and the Privacy Act 1988 - A short guide for the private health sector. December 2001. Copy available at http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/hp.html.

[587] OPC review, pp 29-30.

[588] OPC review, pp 64-5. Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, Attachment, pp 6-7.

[589] OPC review, pp 64-5. Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, Attachment, pp 6-7

[590] OPC review, pp 64-5. Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, Attachment, pp 6-7 Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, Submission 21, pp 2-3.

[591] OPC review, p. 64. See also Professor Colin Thomson, The Regulation of Health Information Privacy in Australia. A description and comment, (National Health and Medical Research Council Privacy Committee, Commonwealth of Australia, January 2004).

[592] Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales, Submission 12, p. 5.

[593] Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 4.

[594] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, pp 2, 10.

[595] OPC review, p. 66.

[596] See OPC review, p. 42. See also Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 4. Tasmania, for example, has enacted personal privacy laws which have yet to commence. Professor Chalmers and Dr Dianne Nicol, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 9.

[597] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 3.

[598] Law Institute of Victoria, Submission 37, p. 7.

[599] Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission 32, pp 8-9. Submissions received by the OPC during its review of the private sector provisions of the Privacy Act also 'overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the existing state of health privacy laws in Australia is unsatisfactory for health service providers and individuals'. OPC review, pp 64, 68.

[600] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 14 and Attachment, p. 8. The Department provided one example of the effect of several layers of privacy regulation. In giving advice to ACT pathologists who were changing their forms in a way that gave rise to privacy implications, the Department had to refer to the Privacy Act (the IPPs and NPPs), the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act 1997 (ACT) and other ACT legislation, applying to pathologists operating as a private sector organisation. Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 14 and Attachment, p. 8. See also OPC review, p. 40.

[601] Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 4. See also the sections of this report concerning the resourcing of and enforcement by the OPC.

[602] OPC review, p. 67.

[603] OPC review, p. 64.

[604] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, Attachment, p. 5.

[605] The summary provided is taken from Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, pp 10-12 and Attachment, pp 14-15. See also http://www.healthconnect.gov.au/about/index.htm and http://www.ahic.org.au/strategy/index.html.

[606] Implementation of HealthConnect has begun in Tasmania, South Australia and the Katherine region of the Northern Territory, while discussions and other projects are underway in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia and the ACT.

[607] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 10.

[608] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 5.

[609] See, for example, chapter 3 of this report which canvasses concerns surrounding the Medicare smartcard. See also Moira Paterson, 'Developing privacy issues in the growing area of health IT', Australian Health Law Bulletin, Vol.13, No. 8, May 2005, pp 89 – 95.

[610] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 5.

[611] See HealthConnect, HealthConnect – an overview (updated December 2004), p. 10. Copy at http://www.healthconnect.gov.au/pdf/overviewDec04.pdf. See also Senator The Hon. Eric Abetz, Special Minister of State, Privacy Key in E-Government, media release A0523, 6 June 2005; James Riley, "Abetz calls for privacy review", The Australian, 7 June 2005, p. 30.

[612] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, Attachment, p. 30.

[613] Moira Paterson, 'Developing privacy issues in the growing area of health IT', Australian Health Law Bulletin, Vol.13, No. 8, May 2005, p. 93.

[614] Details are at http://www7.health.gov.au/pubs/nhpcode.htm. The Code establishes a set of National Health Privacy Principles (NHPPs). These govern dealings with 'health information' and are similar to the NPPs established by the Privacy Act. Key differences are NHPP 10, which concerns the transfer or closure of a health service provider's practice, and NHPP11, which set out when health information can be made available to other health service providers. The Code was developed by a National Health Privacy Working Group established by Federal, State and Territory Health Ministers. The Working Group recently concluded public consultations on a draft Code. See HealthConnect, HealthConnect – an overview (updated December 2004), p.10. See also Moira Paterson, 'Developing privacy issues in the growing area of health IT', Australian Health Law Bulletin, Vol. 13, No. 8, May 2005, p. 93.

[615] See, for example, Law Institute of Victoria Submission 37; Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 6; Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p, 4; Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission 32, pp 8-9.

[616] The Australian Medical Association, for example, urged that privacy law be made uniform across the Australian jurisdictions for both the private and public sector and called for a replacement set of nationally coordinated health specific privacy principles, or an overarching national health privacy code. Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 4.

[617] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 15.

[618] OPC review, p. 69.

[619] Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission 32, pp 8-9.

[620] The OPC noted the latter option would entail one set of privacy principles to regulate the handling of health information, which address somewhat national consistency issues. However, it would also mean longer and more complex principles and run counter to the aim of providing broad principles of general application. OPC review, pp 69-70.

[621] OPC review, pp 68-70. No evidence was presented to the committee on the Commonwealth's constitutional powers to enact unilaterally a national health privacy regime binding on state and territory agencies as well as the private sector. State and territory legislation purporting to regulate health records may be inconsistent at least to the extent that it imposes obligations on the same organisations covered by the Privacy Act. See section 3 of that Act. See also OPC review, p. 45. Regulations could be made under the Privacy Act prescribing an instrumentality of a state or territory as 'an organisation' for the purposes of the Act and, by this means, the operation of the Code could be extended to the state and territory public sector health providers. However, this may only occur at the request of the relevant state or territory government. Section 6F(3)(a) of the Privacy Act. See Centre for Law and Genetics, Submission 24, p. 6.

[622] OPC review, Recommendation 13, p. 9.

[623] OPC review, p. 68.

[624] There are a range of exceptions to this general rule. The exception at NPP 2.1(a) provides that health information can be used or disclosed for another purpose where this is directly related to the primary purpose and the individual would reasonably expect the use or disclosure. OPC review, p. 263.

[625] See OPC review, pp 263 – 268. A holistic approach to healthcare encompasses the idea of taking into account the past experiences and healthcare history of a particular person, and trying to project into the future their likely healthcare needs. See the evidence of the Mental Health Privacy Coalition cited in the OPC review. OPC review, p. 264.

[626] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, pp 7-8 and p. 23 of Attachment.

[627] OPC review, pp 267-268.

[628] OPC review, Recommendations 77 and 78. p. 20.

[629] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 7.

[630] Ms Pamela Burton, Australian Medical Association, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 19-20. See also Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 9.

[631] OPC review, pp 117 - 118, Recommendation 30.

[632] OPC review, p. 213.

[633] OPC review, pp 214 - 215.

[634] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 14. See also Festival of Light, Submission 30, p. 6.

[635] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 14 and p. 26 of Attachment A.

[636] OPC review, p. 213.

[637] Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, p. 10 See also Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p 21. Public Interest Determinations (PIDs) enable the Privacy Commissioner to reduce the privacy protections of one or more of the National Privacy Principles (NPPs) in certain circumstances.

[638] The Commissioner issued PIDs to enable doctors in certain prescribed circumstances to collect information necessary to obtain an individual's family, social or medical history during the provision of a health service. A PID was also issued to allow doctors to obtain information from the Health Insurance Commission’s Prescription Shopping Information Service. The Service allows doctors who suspect a patient of seeking to obtain medicine in excess of medical need to check records held by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme showing prescriptions issued to the patient. This information was considered a critical part of providing assessment, diagnosis and treatment to the individuals concerned. Obtaining the consent of third parties to collect this information, and notifying those individuals about these collections, was considered impractical, inefficient and detrimental to the provision of quality health outcomes. See OPC review, pp 273 -274.

[639] OPC review, Recommendations 81 and 82, p. 20.

[640] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 21.

[641] OPC review, p. 281.

[642] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 21.

[643] OPC review, pp 281-283.

[644] OPC review, p. 284.

[645] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 13.

[646] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, pp 13-15. The Department, for example, identified inconsistencies and confusion that have arisen in the context of Australian Government funded Aboriginal health services. It drew attention to circumstances when compliance with the NPPs alone would, in the appropriate circumstances, allow a doctor to discuss the care of a patient with a relative without the patient’s consent, but compliance with the IPPs would not. See OPC review, p. 39.

[647] OPC review, Recommendation 5, p. 8.

[648] See OPC review, pp 200-201.

[649] See, for example, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Submission 13, p. 2; NHMRC Submission 20, pp 7-8; Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, pp 13-14.

[650] OPC review, pp 201-208.

[651] OPC review, p. 203. Australian Medical Association, Submission 9, pp 13-14.

[652] NHMRC, Submission 20 p. 3.

[653] See sources at footnote 111.

[654] Submission 13, pp 6-7. See also Department of Health and Ageing, Submission 34, p. 21.

[655] OPC review, p. 201.

[656] See this regard pp. 205, 208 of the OPC report.

[657] Queensland Institute of Medical Research Submission 13, p. 7.

[658] OPC review, Recommendation 60, pp 210-212.

[659] See DFAT, Submission 39, pp 5-7 and ARC, Submission 44.

[660] Submission 39, p. 5.

[661] Submission 39, p. 5.

[662] Submission 39, p. 6.

[663] Submission 39, p. 6.

[664] Submission 39, p. 7.

[665] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 4.

[666] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 4.

[667] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 4.

[668] Submission 44, pp 2-3.

[669] Submission 44, p. 2; see also Mr Robert Tickner, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 30-31.

[670] Submission 44, p. 2; see also Mr Noel Clement, Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 31.

[671] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 31.

[672] Submission 44, pp 2-3.

[673] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 32. IPP11 currently provides a narrow exemption allowing for disclosure in limited circumstances to prevent a serious and imminent threat to life or health.

[674] OPC review, pp 234-238.

[675] OPC review, p. 234.

[676] OPC review, p. 235.

[677] See further OPC review, pp 235-237.

[678] OPC review, Recommendation 68, p. 237.

[679] OPC review, Recommendation 68, p. 237.

[680] OPC review, Recommendation 68, p. 238.

[681] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, pp 8-9.

[682] Submission 7, p. [1].

[683] Submission 7, p. [1].

[684] Submission 32, p. 26.

[685] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 13.

[686] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 13. See further ABS, Discussion Paper: Enhancing the Population Census: Developing a Longitudinal View, ABS 2060.0, April 2005.

[687] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 13.

[688] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 13.

[689] ABS, Discussion Paper: Enhancing the Population Census: Developing a Longitudinal View, ABS 2060.0, April 2005, p. 18.

[690] Submission 42, p. 3.

[691] Submission 42, p. 3; see also Mr Trevor Van Dam, AFP, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 39-40.

[692] Submission 42, p. 3; see also OPC review, p. 222.

[693] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 43.

[694] Submission 42, p. 3.

[695] OPC review, pp 219-223.

[696] OPC review, Recommendation 65, p. 223.

[697] Mr Trevor Van Dam, AFP, Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 43.

[698] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, pp 43-44.

[699] Submission 29, p. 1.

[700] Submission 29, p. 6.

[701] Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children, August 2004, p. 286.

[702] It is understood that the Government's response was delayed by the need to await the second report of the 'Forgotten Australians' inquiry. The second report was tabled in March 2005 and covered remaining matters including foster care, children with physical and mental disabilities in care, and other contemporary issues of child welfare and child protection.

[703] Submission 43, p. 13.

[704] That is, 2003-2004.

[705] Submission 43, p. 3.

[706] Submission 43, p. 3.

[707] See, for example, AEIA, Submission 16, pp 2-3; AEEMA, Submission 26, p. 3; Mr Roger Clarke, Submission 28, p.3 and Attachment p. 9; FIA, Submission 3, p. 10; AMA, Submission 9, p. 16; APF, Submission 32, pp 22-23; ACA, Submission 15, pp 15-16; Victorian Privacy Commissioner, Submission 33, pp 5-6; Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 16.

[708] Submission 9, p. 16.

[709] Submission 9, p. 16.

[710] Submission 28, p. 3.

[711] See, for example, AMA, Submission 9, p. 16.

[712] Submission 26, p. 3.

[713] See, for example, ACA, Submission 15, pp 15-16; APF, Submission 32, p. 22.

[714] Submission 15, p. 16.

[715] Office of the Privacy Commissioner, The Operation of the Privacy Act Annual Report: 1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004, p. 65; see also Issues Paper, pp 45-46.

[716] Submission 15, pp 15-16.

[717] Submission 32, p. 22.

[718] Submission 32, pp 22-23.

[719] Submission 32, p. 23.

[720] Submission 32, p. 23.

[721] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 27.

[722] OPC review, p. 150.

[723] OPC review, p. 150.

[724] OPC review, Recommendation 38, p. 162.

[725] ACA, Submission 15, p. 15; APF, Submission 32, p. 22.

[726] For example, ACA, Submission 15, p. 15; ANZ, Submission 6, p. 6; FIA, Submission 3, p. 9; Legal Aid Queensland, Submission 31, p. 5. For example, Legal Aid Queensland reported that '(i)n September 2004 one of our officers was informed by the Privacy Commissioner's Office that they had just started opening files for complaints received in September 2003. A delay of one year or more between the making of a substantive complaint and investigation of the complaint is arguably not acceptable': Submission 31, p. 5.

[727] ACA, Submission 15, p. 16.

[728] Submission 15, p. 15.

[729] Submission 17, p. 46.

[730] Submission 48, p. 11.

[731] Submission 48, p. 11.

[732] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 3.

[733] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 5.

[734] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 54.

[735] Submission 3, p. 9.

[736] Submission 15, p. 16.

[737] Submission 15, p. 16.

[738] Submission 15, p. 16.

[739] Submission 15, p. 16.

[740] Submission 31, p. 5.

[741] Submission 15, p. 17.

[742] OPC review, Recommendation 45, p. 163.

[743] OPC review, Recommendation 46, p. 163.

[744] Submission 32B, p. 5.

[745] Submission 32B, p. 5.

[746] Submission 32B, p. 5.

[747] See, for example, APF, Submission 32, p. 22; ADMA, Submission 38, p. 8; Ms Jodie Sangster, ADMA, Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 30. Note also the OPC and ADMA research in relation to this, as discussed in chapter 2.

[748] See, for example, AEEMA, Submission 26, p. 3; NHMRC, Submission 20, p. 9; FIA, Submission 3, p. 5; QIMR, Submission 13, p. 7; ADMA, Submission 38, p. 8.

[749] Submission 20, p. 9.

[750] Submission 20, p. 9.

[751] Submission 20, p. 10.

[752] Committee Hansard, 19 May 2005, p. 54.

[753] Estimates Hansard, 24 May 2005, p. 60.

[754] Submission 15, p. 17.

[755] Submission 15, p. 17.

[756] Submission 15, p. 17.

[757] Submission 33, pp 5-6; Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 5.

[758] Submission 32, pp 23-24; pp 26-27.

[759] Submission 24, p. 5.

[760] Committee Hansard, 20 May 2005, p. 12.

[761] Submission 26, p. 3.

[762] Committee Hansard, 22 April 2005, p. 48.

[763] See OPC review, pp 125-163.

[764] OPC review, Recommendation 39, p. 162.

[765] OPC review, Recommendation 42, p. 163.

[766] OPC review, Recommendation 43, p. 163.

[767] OPC review, Recommendation 44, p. 163.

[768] OPC review, Recommendation 44, p. 163.

[769] Submission 32B, p. 3.

[770] Submission 32B, p. 7.

[771] Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996, s. 21.

[772] The Law Reform Commission, Privacy, ALRC Report No. 22, 1983; and see also Privacy and the Census, ALRC Report No. 12, 1979.

[773] ALRC and NHMRC, Essentially Yours: Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia, ALRC 96, 2003, available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/

[774] Submission 17, p. 34.

[775] Submission 32, p. 14.

[776] OPC review, Recommendation 24.

[777] Baycorp Advantage, Submission 43, p. 5.

[778] See OPC review, Recommendation 10, para 7.78.

[779] See OPC review, Recommendation 10, para 7.78.

[780] Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No.2, July 2004, p. 349-366.

[781] Van Onselen and Errington, p. 353.

[782] Van Onselen and Errington, p. 353.

[783] Van Onselen and Errington, p. 361.

[784] Van Onselen and Errington, p. 349.