By: Cameron Abbott, Stephanie Mayhew, and Rob Pulham
The long-awaited privacy reform has finally been introduced into the Australian Parliament today with the introduction of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024. Described as ‘Tranche 1’ of the reforms, the Bill introduces significant uplifts to several aspects of Australia’s privacy laws.
Read MoreBy Cameron Abbott, Rob Pulham, and Stephanie Mayhew
In 2023 the Attorney-General’s Department released the “Privacy Act Review Report” (Review Report), which considered whether the Australian Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and its enforcement mechanisms are fit for purpose in an environment where Australians now live much of their lives online and their information is collected and used for a myriad of purposes in the digital economy.
Read MoreBy Cameron Abbott, Rob Pulham and Ella Richards
Some Australian jurisdictions have imposed obligations on businesses and employers to either sight, or collect and hold, information about their workers’ COVID-19 vaccination status, or to take reasonable steps to ensure unvaccinated individuals do not enter their worksites or premises. For example, on 7 October 2021, the Premier of Victoria released Directions that require employers to collect information about workers’ COVID-19 vaccination status before allowing them to work anywhere outside of the employees’ usual place of residence. Industry-specific obligations (with some differences to those Directions) also apply to some settings such as education, construction and healthcare. Similarly, under public health orders in New South Wales, certain businesses from 11 October 2021 must take reasonable steps to ensure people who are not fully vaccinated do not enter their premises.
The Victorian Government Directions for workers are in effect from today, 15 October 2021, meaning that many employees must provide proof of either receiving their first dose or having booked their first dose by 22 October 2021.
To comply with privacy obligations (including under applicable health records legislation), employers must provide employees with a clear collection statement that outlines, among other things:
Even where a business is not subject to these mandatory collection requirements, they may wish to collect this information from employees to assist the business to maintain a safe and secure working environment (including, for example, to provide encouragement to staff to get vaccinated – subject to the requirements around providing incentives to do so).
If you would like advice on your Privacy obligations as an employer, please reach out to Cameron Abbott from our Privacy team. For further information on the Victorian Government Directions, see the Alert from our K&L Gates employment team here.
By Cameron Abbott, Rob Pulham and Keely O’Dowd
In December 2019, the Australian Government announced it would conduct a review of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
A year has almost passed and finally the Australian Government has publicly released details about the review. On 30 October 2020, the Australian Government released the Terms of Reference of the review. In particular, the review will cover:
By Warwick Andersen, Rob Pulham and Georgia Mills
In 2017 Andie Fox, a recipient of Centrelink benefits, wrote a highly critical opinion piece on Centrelink’s debt recovery system, alleging that she was being pursued for a non-existent debt. In response Centrelink provided Ms Fox’s personal information, previous communications and claims history to a journalist who published an article claiming that Centrelink had been ‘unfairly castigated’ by Fox. The OAIC commenced an investigation into the release and has controversially confirmed Centrelink’s disclosure as permitted under the Privacy Act.
By Cameron Abbott, Simon McDonald and Meg Aitken
The ongoing debate surrounding what “metadata” actually is, and how it should be characterised under privacy laws has once again resurfaced. This time, the Federal Court will have a chance to decide on the issue, following a decision by the Privacy Commissioner to appeal a finding that denied a journalist access to metadata on the basis that it was not personal information.
Way back in 2013, a then technology journalist for Fairfax, Ben Grubb, asked Telstra to provide him with metadata and other information held by it in relation to his mobile phone on the basis that it constituted ‘personal information’ under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act) and he was therefore entitled to it.
Telstra did provide some information to Mr Grubb (including his outgoing call records, bills and the customer details they had stored for him), however it submitted that the “metadata” produced from his mobile phone use on Telstra’s network was not personal information, as it was not linked to him in a way that made his identity apparent or reasonably ascertainable.
Unsatisfied with this answer, Mr Grubb lodged a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner. In May 2015, the Commissioner held that Telstra ‘cross-matched’ data across its mobile network in such a way that it was possible to determine a customer’s identity and that Telstra was therefore in breach on NPP 6.1 (as it then was) by refusing to provide Mr Grubb with access to his personal information.
Telstra appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA). Taking a strangely narrow approach to the issue, Deputy President Forgie ruled that the mobile network data was not personal information for the purpose of the Privacy Act. Instead, she said that the metadata was actually information about the service provided by Telstra and the delivery of that service, rather than about Mr Grubb and his mobile phone use. On that basis, Telstra was not obliged to provide Mr Grubb with access to the information, despite it being generated directly from his use of Telstra’s services.
Seem contrary to the deliberately broad concept of personal information that is designed to protect individuals? We agree, and so does the Privacy Commissioner. ‘Stay on the line’ to see how the Federal Court approaches the issue.
Access the determination and reasons for determination of Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim in Ben Grubb and Telstra Corporation Limited [2015] AICmr 35 (1 May 2015) here.
Access the AATA decision of Deputy President S A Forgie in Telstra Corporation Limited and Privacy Commissioner [2015] AATA 991 (18 December 2015) here.
Access the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s Press Release here.
Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.