Privacy commissioner asks Department of Human Services to explain why Andie Fox’s details were publicly released
Tuesday 28 February 2017
Releasing an individual’s Centrelink information to counter their public criticism is legally a “very debatable” move, welfare advocates have said after the public disclosure of welfare recipient Andie Fox’s personal history.
The government has come under fire for releasing Fox’s personal information to Fairfax Media, which used it to counter her public criticism of Centrelink.
The Department of Human Services said it was legally permitted to release such information to correct the public record under social security law but the National Social Security Rights Network questioned the legality of the disclosures.
Ordinarily, a certificate would be required from the secretary of the department to authorise the release of personal information. But the agency has argued it did not need to take this step.
The network’s executive officer, Matthew Butt, said the law only allowed the government to release personal information in “very limited circumstances” and generally only to assist it in administering an individual’s entitlements accurately.
“It is very debatable, in our view, whether this authorisation extends further to using information publicly in the way that occurred yesterday, divorced from this function,” Butt said. “Irrespective of the legal position, we do not think this is appropriate nor does it pass the test of what someone would reasonably expect when they disclose personal information to Centrelink.”
Butt said there was some misinformation in the debate about the government’s automated debt recovery system. However, he said releasing personal information was not the way to deal with that problem.
“Public debate about the ‘robodebt’ issue is really important and it must include the stories of individuals affected by it,” he said. “Those stories may at times contain inaccuracies but this is normally because they are describing the system as they experienced it. Hearing about individual experiences is the vital to this debate.”
Concerns about the legality of the move are backed by senior lecturer Darren O’Donovan at the La Trobe law school.
In a post published on Tuesday he wrote it was unlikely the organisation could release personal information without the secretary authorising it with a certificate. He said: “It just does not seem to reflect statutory privacy protections existing across Australian law.”
The privacy commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, has also asked the Department of Human Services to explain why senior officials approved the release of Fox’s personal Centrelink details.
“I am aware of the media reports concerning this issue. My office is making inquiries with the Department of Human Services,” Pilgrim told Guardian Australia. “An agency may only disclose an individual’s personal information in a limited range of circumstances.”
Pilgrim also appeared in Senate estimates on Tuesday, and urged the department to consider the sensitivity of the information they hold and the impact its release could have. He said his inquiries into the release of Fox’s information were only informal in nature at this stage.
“Having seen a report that there were some concerns about how potentially sensitive information had been released, I thought it was necessary for us to make some inquiries to assess what powers Centrelink was using to release the personal information of an individual into the public arena,” he said.
“We’re making general inquiries, I would stress that this is not a formal investigation at this time.”
The release of the information was approved by a deputy secretary, with the assent of the department’s general counsel and head of legal services.
The Labor MP Linda Burney sought to increase pressure on the government in parliament on Tuesday, moving a motion to that demanded an apology for the release of Fox’s information.
Burney said it was a “grave act” to turn the powerful machinery of government on individuals who air public criticism. She said the actions may have breached the privacy act.
“Whether legally permissible or not, these are deeply unethical actions by the minister and the department,” Burney said. “Leaking private information is not something a government should do lightly.”
Tudge said the government was acting within the bounds of the law. “In cases where people have gone to the media, with statements that are incorrect or misleading ... we are able to, under the Social Services Act, release information about the person for the purpose of, as I quote, ‘correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, or a misleading statement’,” Tudge said. “That is what the law allows.”
Greens senator, Rachel Siewert, said she would use a Senate estimates hearing on Thursday to ask questions about the disclosure of Fox’s personal information.
Siewert said it was an extremely concerning decision that had “huge implications” for privacy of those on welfare.
“The effort the government has put into ‘correcting the record’ for media should go to correcting thousands of incorrect debts,” Siewert said.
“It says a lot that the Department would rather attack the messenger than address the serious issues raised,” she said.
Tuesday 28 February 2017
Releasing an individual’s Centrelink information to counter their public criticism is legally a “very debatable” move, welfare advocates have said after the public disclosure of welfare recipient Andie Fox’s personal history.
The government has come under fire for releasing Fox’s personal information to Fairfax Media, which used it to counter her public criticism of Centrelink.
The Department of Human Services said it was legally permitted to release such information to correct the public record under social security law but the National Social Security Rights Network questioned the legality of the disclosures.
Ordinarily, a certificate would be required from the secretary of the department to authorise the release of personal information. But the agency has argued it did not need to take this step.
The network’s executive officer, Matthew Butt, said the law only allowed the government to release personal information in “very limited circumstances” and generally only to assist it in administering an individual’s entitlements accurately.
“It is very debatable, in our view, whether this authorisation extends further to using information publicly in the way that occurred yesterday, divorced from this function,” Butt said. “Irrespective of the legal position, we do not think this is appropriate nor does it pass the test of what someone would reasonably expect when they disclose personal information to Centrelink.”
Butt said there was some misinformation in the debate about the government’s automated debt recovery system. However, he said releasing personal information was not the way to deal with that problem.
“Public debate about the ‘robodebt’ issue is really important and it must include the stories of individuals affected by it,” he said. “Those stories may at times contain inaccuracies but this is normally because they are describing the system as they experienced it. Hearing about individual experiences is the vital to this debate.”
Concerns about the legality of the move are backed by senior lecturer Darren O’Donovan at the La Trobe law school.
In a post published on Tuesday he wrote it was unlikely the organisation could release personal information without the secretary authorising it with a certificate. He said: “It just does not seem to reflect statutory privacy protections existing across Australian law.”
The privacy commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, has also asked the Department of Human Services to explain why senior officials approved the release of Fox’s personal Centrelink details.
“I am aware of the media reports concerning this issue. My office is making inquiries with the Department of Human Services,” Pilgrim told Guardian Australia. “An agency may only disclose an individual’s personal information in a limited range of circumstances.”
Pilgrim also appeared in Senate estimates on Tuesday, and urged the department to consider the sensitivity of the information they hold and the impact its release could have. He said his inquiries into the release of Fox’s information were only informal in nature at this stage.
“Having seen a report that there were some concerns about how potentially sensitive information had been released, I thought it was necessary for us to make some inquiries to assess what powers Centrelink was using to release the personal information of an individual into the public arena,” he said.
“We’re making general inquiries, I would stress that this is not a formal investigation at this time.”
The release of the information was approved by a deputy secretary, with the assent of the department’s general counsel and head of legal services.
The Labor MP Linda Burney sought to increase pressure on the government in parliament on Tuesday, moving a motion to that demanded an apology for the release of Fox’s information.
Burney said it was a “grave act” to turn the powerful machinery of government on individuals who air public criticism. She said the actions may have breached the privacy act.
“Whether legally permissible or not, these are deeply unethical actions by the minister and the department,” Burney said. “Leaking private information is not something a government should do lightly.”
Tudge said the government was acting within the bounds of the law. “In cases where people have gone to the media, with statements that are incorrect or misleading ... we are able to, under the Social Services Act, release information about the person for the purpose of, as I quote, ‘correcting a mistake of fact, a misleading perception or impression, or a misleading statement’,” Tudge said. “That is what the law allows.”
Greens senator, Rachel Siewert, said she would use a Senate estimates hearing on Thursday to ask questions about the disclosure of Fox’s personal information.
Siewert said it was an extremely concerning decision that had “huge implications” for privacy of those on welfare.
“The effort the government has put into ‘correcting the record’ for media should go to correcting thousands of incorrect debts,” Siewert said.
“It says a lot that the Department would rather attack the messenger than address the serious issues raised,” she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment