Reviewing specific secrecy offences

11.2 Concerns have been raised about the number and diversity of Commonwealth secrecy provisions and the lack of consistency in the drafting of offences and associated penalties.[1] The Terms of Reference for this Inquiry ask the ALRC to report on options for ensuring a consistent approach across the Australian Government to the protection of Commonwealth information.[2]

11.3 In this Report, the ALRC makes a number of recommendations for the reform of specific secrecy offences. In the ALRC’s view, applying these recommendations to existing secrecy offences will involve consideration of three interrelated issues:

  • does the conduct covered by the specific secrecy offence warrant the imposition of criminal sanction;
  • do the terms of the specific secrecy offence comply with the best practice principles set out in Chapters 8, 9 and 10; and
  • could the secrecy obligations within an Act or an agency’s portfolio legislation be consolidated in a clear and accessible way?

11.4 This section discusses each of these three questions in turn. In doing so, it provides examples of specific secrecy offences that could be considered for amendment or repeal. The ALRC does not suggest that the specific secrecy offences considered here are the only offences that require review—rather, the examples are intended to demonstrate possible outcomes of the application of the recommendations of this Report to existing specific secrecy offences.

Are criminal sanctions warranted?

11.5 A threshold question in reviewing specific secrecy offences is whether it is appropriate for a breach of the secrecy provision to attract criminal sanctions. In Chapter 4, the ALRC sets out a framework for the reform of secrecy provisions. The framework reserves criminal penalties for conduct of such seriousness that it is likely to cause harm to essential public interests.

11.6 As noted in Chapter 3, a large number of specific secrecy offences deal only with the disclosure of personal or commercial information. In Chapter 5, the ALRC expresses the view that the unauthorised disclosure of personal and commercial information does not, without more, warrant the imposition of criminal sanctions. Where personal or commercial information is disclosed in the private sector, the matter may give rise to contractual, common law or equitable remedies, not criminal prosecution. The ALRC considers that, where personal or commercial information is disclosed in the public sector, similar options for redress should generally be available, including lodging a complaint under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth),the imposition of administrative penalties such as those provided by the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), as well as contractual, common law and equitable remedies.

11.7 The limited exception to this principle, discussed in Chapter 8, is where regulatory agencies—such as taxation or social security agencies or oversight bodies such as corporate regulators—need to strictly control sensitive personal and commercial information provided to them by the public. In these cases, the harm caused by the unauthorised disclosure of such information is to the public interest in maintaining the relationship of trust between the government and individuals that is integral to an effective regulatory system or the provision of government services.

11.8 Several specific secrecy offences impose criminal sanctions on a Commonwealth officer for the unauthorised disclosure of personal or commercial information.

Example: Section 60(1) of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)

Section 60(1) of the Age Discrimination Act provides that:

A person bound by this section because of office, employment or authorisation must not, either directly or indirectly:

(a) make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person, any information relating to the affairs of another person acquired by the first‑mentioned person because of that person’s office or employment under or for the purposes of this Act or because of that person being or having been so authorised; or

(b) make use of any such information as is mentioned in paragraph (a); or

(c) produce to any person a document relating to the affairs of another person given for the purposes of this Act.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

This provision does not expressly state the harm sought to be prevented by the criminal offence. However, it is likely that the policy reasons for the offence are: first, to protect personal privacy; and secondly, to reassure people making a complaint of discrimination that the information that they provide will be treated confidentially.

The imposition of criminal sanctions for disclosures of personal information, or information that may affect civil or administrative processes, such as the investigation and resolution of a complaint of unlawful discrimination, is, in the ALRC’s view, unwarranted.[3]

Consideration should be given to repealing this offence provision, or perhaps recasting it as a provision the breach of which would attract administrative penalties.

11.9 The ALRC has identified a number of similar offences, which criminalise the unauthorised disclosure, by Commonwealth officers, of personal or commercial information outside the core regulatory and oversight contexts discussed in Chapter 8.[4]

Submissions and consultations

11.10 In the Discussion Paper, Review of Secrecy Laws (DP 74), the ALRC made a number of proposals in relation to a review of specific secrecy offences in accordance with the proposals set out in DP 74.[5]

11.11 In a submission to this Inquiry, Ron Fraser supported the ALRC’s approach to identifying specific secrecy offences for amendment or repeal. He noted that:

It is particularly important that individual secrecy provisions applying to information relating to the affairs of persons … should be repealed, and not replaced by provisions that encompass personal privacy and business affairs information.[6]

11.12 While some government agencies expressed in-principle support for reviewing specific secrecy offences, many noted that any such review must take account of the particular policy contexts and purposes of each specific offence. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) was

not opposed to comprehensive testing of secrecy provisions to determine which ones can be repealed and replaced with a general secrecy offence, and which ones should be retained as specific secrecy provisions. The ABS would expect to contribute to the testing process regarding the secrecy provisions in the [Census and Statistics Act 1905 (Cth)].[7]

11.13 Similarly, the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) submitted that:

Review of this profusion of legislation against suitable benchmarks is no doubt warranted, but it should be noted that the varying circumstances in which, and purposes for which, information is acquired may dictate a variety of approaches and uniformity should not be imposed arbitrarily.[8]

11.14 Some government agencies submitted that they needed their own specific secrecy provision on the basis that their provisions differed in significant and necessary ways from the general secrecy offence. For example, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) considered that:

the general secrecy offence differs significantly from the existing tax secrecy provisions, such that the general offence would not of itself provide sufficient protection for taxpayer information. As a result, the ATO strongly supports the retention of the tax law secrecy provisions.[9]

11.15 Similarly, the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) considered that health information was a special category of information that warranted specific protection:

Health information collected in the course of administering health programs may be extremely sensitive and may need to continue to be protected by a specific secrecy provision, regardless of a general secrecy offence. In addition, specific secrecy offence provisions may still be appropriate to regulate certain conduct which would otherwise fall outside of the scope of the general secrecy offence (eg soliciting).[10]

11.16 Finally, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) submitted that AUSTRAC information needs to be protected for reasons beyond the harm to public interests identified in the general secrecy offence, and that the current secrecy provisions in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) should be retained.[11]

Applying best practice principles

11.17 In Chapter 8, the ALRC recommends that, to avoid unnecessary replication of the general secrecy offence, specific secrecy offences should differ in significant and justifiable ways from the recommended general secrecy offence.[12] There may be legitimate reasons why a specific secrecy offence is necessary in some circumstances, for example where:

  • the unauthorised disclosure causes, or is likely or intended to cause, harm to an essential public interest not covered by the general secrecy offence;
  • the offence regulates people other than Commonwealth officers as defined in the general secrecy offence;
  • the offence covers conduct other than the disclosure of information—such as soliciting, obtaining or making a record of information; or
  • the penalties differ significantly from those provided by the general secrecy offence.

11.18 The extent to which these differences may justify the creation or retention of specific secrecy offences depends on the policy context for each offence.

11.19 In this Report, the ALRC makes a number of recommendations to guide the framing of specific secrecy offences. In summary, these recommendations provide that specific secrecy offences:

  • should include an express requirement that, for an offence to be committed, the unauthorised disclosure caused, or was likely or intended to cause, harm to an identified essential public interest, except in certain limited circumstances (Recommendation 8–2);
  • that apply to individuals other than Commonwealth officers, should clearly identify the parties regulated by the offence (Recommendation 9–1);
  • that apply to Commonwealth officers, should also apply to former Commonwealth officers (Recommendation 9–2);
  • should not extend to conduct other than the disclosure of information—such as making a record of, receiving or possessing, information—unless such conduct would cause, or is likely or intended to cause, harm to an essential public interest (Recommendation 9–3);
  • should generally require intention as the fault element for the physical element consisting of conduct (Recommendation 9–4);
  • with an express harm requirement, should generally require that a person knew, intended that, or was reckless as to whether, the conduct would cause harm to an essential public interest (Recommendation 9–5);
  • without an express harm requirement, should require that a person knew, or was reckless as to whether, the protected information fell within a particular category, and should not provide that strict liability applies to that circumstance (Recommendation 9–6);
  • should provide maximum penalties that reflect the seriousness of the potential harm caused by the unauthorised conduct, and the fault elements that attach to the elements of the offence (Recommendation 9–8);
  • that impose secrecy obligations on officers, should generally include an exception for disclosures in the course of an officer’s functions or duties (Recommendation 10–2); and
  • should not apply to the disclosure of information that is lawfully in the public domain (Recommendation 10–3).

11.20 Where an existing specific secrecy offence is warranted, it should be reviewed for compliance with these best practice principles.

Submissions and consultations

11.21 As noted above, in DP 74 the ALRC proposed that the Australian Government review specific secrecy offences in accordance with its proposals.[13]

11.22 A number of stakeholders supported a review of secrecy provisions against best practice principles,[14] to remove duplication and reduce the number of secrecy provisions.[15]However, the Department of Human Services (DHS) submitted that a whole of government review of secrecy provisions would take considerable time, and noted that:

The Human Services Portfolio will continue to work with other Commonwealth Departments, with State and Territory governments and with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to look for ways to remove secrecy and related privacy impediments to improved service delivery while maintaining appropriate levels of protection for personal and business and professional information.[16]

11.23 Some agencies noted that reviews of secrecy provisions in particular portfolios were imminent or currently underway. For example, the Treasury and the ATO referred to a review of taxation secrecy laws, discussed further below.[17] The Department of Defence also noted that it was undertaking a review of offence provisions in pt VII of the Defence Act 1903 (Cth), including specific secrecy offences:

The review will aim to modernise the offence provisions, bring them into line with current Commonwealth criminal law policy and address overlap with other Commonwealth criminal offences.[18]

11.24 Two stakeholders considered that it would be appropriate for the ALRC to recommend a timeframe for agencies to review specific secrecy offences. For example, Ron Fraser stated that it would be appropriate to include

a requirement that all individual secrecy provisions should be so reviewed within, say, three years of government acceptance of its report on secrecy. It might also be advisable to makes some suggestions as to an appropriate lead agency or agencies for such an exercise, perhaps the Information Commissioner if established, subject to specific funding for the project. Otherwise, there seems a danger that the whole exercise could drift on for many years.[19]

11.25 Similarly, the Australian Privacy Foundation commented that:

We support the Commission’s proposals for systematic review of all existing specific secrecy provisions to justify why they are necessary over and above the proposed new general provision … However we would be very concerned if there were no timescales attached—leaving timing to agencies would invite lengthy delays.[20]

11.26 Some stakeholders suggested that there was a risk in repealing specific secrecy laws. For example, the Australian Privacy Foundation noted that:

One possible downside of repealing secrecy provisions in individual laws and relying on a single provision in the Criminal Code is that the secrecy ‘mandate’ is less visible/transparent to anyone reading a particular law. But on balance it should be possible to compensate for this with education, confidentiality agreements, contractual provisions etc. We submit that the Commission should recommend vigorous promotion of generic secrecy obligations to Commonwealth public servants by all relevant means.[21]

Consolidation of specific secrecy offences

11.27 The potential to consolidate specific secrecy offences may also be considered by agencies when reviewing specific secrecy offences.

11.28 In some instances, consolidation of secrecy offences within a statute may be desirable in order to promote consistency and accessibility of law. However, the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Civil Penalties and Enforcement Powers (Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences) sets out the principle that offences should generally be located with other provisions with the same substantive subject matter, rather than being grouped together in an ‘Offences’ part:

The placement of offences with related substantive provisions assists the reader to identify and understand the relationship between the two. Where provisions are separate, the offence provision and substantive provisions should explicitly refer to each other, so that those subject to the law and those administering the law can readily ascertain the relationship between the provisions.[22]

11.29 Secrecy provisions in related pieces of legislation administered by the same agency may also be consolidated into a single Act. For example, in 2006, the Treasury undertook to review secrecy and disclosure provisions across all taxation legislation (the Taxation Secrecy Review). In its Discussion Paper for the Review of Taxation Secrecy and Disclosure Provisions, the Treasury noted that taxation secrecy provisions are located in numerous different Acts, differ in their language and scope, and have inconsistent penalties.[23] Further, it noted that some provisions merely duplicated provisions located in other Acts.[24]

11.30 The Taxation Secrecy Review proposed that the secrecy and disclosure provisions across all laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation—including laws governing superannuation, excise, and Australian Business Number and Tax File Number disclosures—be standardised and consolidated into a single piece of legislation.[25]

11.31 In March 2009, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, released for public consultation an Exposure Draft Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill (Tax Laws Exposure Draft Bill). The Draft Bill proposes to consolidate, into a single comprehensive framework within the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), taxation secrecy and disclosure provisions that are currently found across 18 pieces of taxation legislation.[26]

11.32 In DP 74, the ALRC proposed that the Australian Government review secrecy offences with a view to consolidation, where possible, into a single provision or part in an Act or regulation, or one Act where multiple secrecy provisions exist across several acts for which the same agencies are responsible.[27]

Submissions and consultations

11.33 A number of stakeholders indicated support for the consolidation of secrecy provisions.[28] For example, Liberty Victoria commented that it:

supports consolidating retained secrecy provisions as it would not only be best practice, but would make their application by Commonwealth officers more practicable and therefore increase compliance.[29]

11.34 While most stakeholders agreed that the consolidation of secrecy provisions, where possible, is a desirable outcome, some stakeholders emphasised that consolidation is not always appropriate.[30] The AGD observed that, while consolidation of secrecy laws may help to reduce complexity in some cases, its effectiveness would depend upon the objectives and overall drafting of each Act.[31]

11.35 The ACC also noted the importance of the legislative context:

integration or co-location of offences of a similar character may be desirable from the viewpoint of understanding the secrecy aspects of the legislation as a whole but removing them from their legislative context may make it harder for the reader to understand how the legislation works in relation to a particular procedure or subject matter.[32]

11.36 The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations noted both the benefits and limitations of consolidating secrecy provisions:

To assist with clarity, avoid confusion and minimise the length of an Act or regulation, it would be highly desirable, where possible, for secrecy provisions to be consolidated into a single provision.

Additionally, where it is suitable and possible, the Department recognises the benefits in having a level of consistency in secrecy provisions across different legislative frameworks. However, caution should be exercised to avoid standardising secrecy provisions simply for the sake of it, as differing contexts are likely to necessitate some level of disparity.[33]

11.37 DoHA did not consider that it would be appropriate to consolidate secrecy provisions where the secrecy provisions apply to different persons, protect different kinds of information and attract different penalties. It noted that this was ‘more likely to create confusion than increase clarity’.[34]

11.38 The Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) acknowledged that ‘consolidation of existing secrecy provisions could simplify arrangements’, but did not support ‘the updating or consolidation of secrecy laws where this would reduce the current protections’. In particular, the AIC considered that:

there is no need to consolidate the secrecy provisions set out in the Crimes Act, the Criminal Code, the Intelligence Services Act and the ASIO Act into single provisions in each Act. … these provisions are set out clearly and logically, in the context of those Acts.[35]

11.39 The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity stated that it ‘prefers a situation where the main secrecy provisions that apply to law enforcement agencies are retained in each agency’s principal statute’.[36] Similarly, the DHS noted that:

Most portfolio agencies expressed a preference for maintaining the existing separate secrecy laws and noted that any moves towards greater consistency (for example, by one portfolio wide legislative provision) should not detract from the capacity of the applicable secrecy laws to respond to the particular needs and functions of each agency.[37]

11.40 In response to the Issues Paper, Review of Secrecy Laws,[38] the Treasury outlined some of the reasons why consolidation was considered appropriate for taxation secrecy and disclosure provisions:

  • All the provisions are obviously administered by the same agency.
  • While the provisions do vary to some extent, there are general principles common to all provisions.
  • It is consistent with a broader initiative to consolidate existing taxation administrative provisions into a single piece of legislation.[39]

11.41 In response to DP 74, the Treasury noted that:

The Tax Secrecy Bill, in bringing together exceptions to non-disclosure found across the taxation law provides an extensive list of the circumstances in which taxpayer information can be lawfully disclosed. As part of the process of bringing these exceptions together, Treasury has been conscious of the need to both simplify them where possible but also to ensure that the consolidation/simplification process does not come at the expense of a significant expansion of the circumstances in which information can be disclosed.[40]

11.42 The ATO also referred to the consolidation of tax secrecy provisions and submitted that ‘where similar rationale exists in other legislative schemes, the ATO is supportive of retaining separate secrecy provisions to protect distinct types of information or access to information where this should be regulated’.[41]

ALRC’s views

11.43 The ALRC considers that reviewing specific secrecy offences to determine, first, whether any should be repealed on the basis that criminal sanctions are not warranted, and secondly, against the principles recommended in Chapters 8, 9 and 10, would ensure that specific secrecy offences only target the disclosure of Commonwealth information where it harms essential public interests. It would also increase the consistency between secrecy offences, reduce complexity and make the law more accessible.

11.44 While the practicalities of consolidating secrecy provisions would depend on the objectives and drafting of specific legislation, the ALRC considers that the consolidation of secrecy provisions into a single provision or part in an Act or regulation assists people subject to secrecy provisions to identify and understand their obligations to protect certain information. Where secrecy offences exist across a number of statutes administered by the same agency, the Review of Taxation Secrecy Laws provides a good model for reviewing specific secrecy offences with an eye to consolidation. The ALRC considers that this kind of exercise might usefully be repeated where secrecy provisions across related legislation seek to protect similar kinds of information.

11.45 The ALRC acknowledges that the implementation of the ALRC’s recommendations for reform of specific secrecy offences will be a lengthy and complex process. Each of the three considerations outlined above will involve a detailed review of the policy, purpose and legal effect of each secrecy offence.

11.46 As noted above, several agencies are currently reviewing the secrecy offences in their portfolio legislation. The ALRC anticipates that there will be ongoing opportunities for other agencies to review secrecy offences. In some cases, an agency may undertake a review of secrecy offences across the statutes for which the agency has responsibility—as in the case of the recent review of taxation secrecy provisions undertaken by the Treasury.[42] In other cases, review might be more opportunistic—for example when other amendments to legislation are being contemplated or when new legislation is being drafted.

11.47 Because of the complexity of the task, and because many reviews will extend across different government agencies, the ALRC is not recommending a timeframe for the review of specific secrecy offences.

Recommendation 11–1 Australian Government agencies should review specific secrecy offences to determine:

  1. (a) whether a criminal offence is warranted; if so,
  2. (b) whether the secrecy offence complies with the best practice principles set out in Recommendations 8­–1 to 8–3, 9–1 to 9–9 and 10–1 to 10–4; and
  3. (c) whether it would be appropriate to consolidate secrecy offences into:
  1. a single provision or part where multiple secrecy provisions exist in the same Act; or
  2. one Act where secrecy offences exist in more than one Act for which the same Australian Government agency is responsible.

[1] See, eg, Australian Law Reform Commission, Keeping Secrets: The Protection of Classified and Security Sensitive Information, ALRC 98 (2004), [5.118]; Australian Parliament—House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, In Confidence: A Report of the Inquiry into the Protection of Confidential Personal and Commercial Information Held by the Commonwealth (1995), 95, 118.

[2] The Terms of Reference are set out at the front of this Report.

[3] This issue is discussed in detail in Ch 5.

[4] See, eg, Wheat Export Marketing Act 2008 (Cth) s 74; Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Act 2008 (Cth) sch 3 item 6; AusCheck Act 2007 (Cth) s 15; Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) s 758; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 (Cth) s 191; Medical Indemnity Act 2002 (Cth) s 77; Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Act 1998 (Cth) s 74(2); Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 (Cth) s 102(2); Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 (Cth) s 63(3B); Broadcasting Services (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1992 (Cth) s 25; Development Allowance Authority Act 1992 (Cth) s 114; Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 127; Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 (Cth) s 87(5); Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth) ss 90H, 90LB; Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s 96; Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 49; Dairy Produce Act 1986 (Cth) sch 2 cl 43; Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 (Cth) s 94; Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 112; Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978 (Cth) ss 31(2), (4); Social Welfare Commission (Repeal) Act 1976 (Cth) s 8; Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) s 27F(1); Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 10.89; National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth) s 19H; Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 377, 439.

[5] Australian Law Reform Commission, Review of Secrecy Laws, Discussion Paper 74 (2009), Proposal
12–4.

[6] R Fraser, Submission SR 78, 21 August 2009.

[7] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Submission SR 58, 7 August 2009.

[8] Australian Crime Commission, Submission SR 75, 19 August 2009.

[9] Australian Taxation Office, Submission SR 55, 7 August 2009.

[10] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission SR 81, 28 August 2009.

[11] Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, Submission SR 73, 17 August 2009.

[12] Recommendation 8–3.

[13] Australian Law Reform Commission, Review of Secrecy Laws, Discussion Paper 74 (2009), Proposal
12–4.

[14] R Fraser, Submission SR 78, 21 August 2009; Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission SR 71, 16 August 2009; Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Submission SR 66, 13 August 2009; Liberty Victoria, Submission SR 50, 5 August 2009; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission SR 47, 27 July 2009.

[15] Australia’s Right to Know, Submission SR 72, 17 August 2009; Community and Public Sector Union, Submission SR 57, 7 August 2009; Liberty Victoria, Submission SR 50, 5 August 2009; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission SR 47, 27 July 2009.

[16] Department of Human Services, Submission SR 83, 8 September 2009.

[17] The Treasury, Submission SR 60, 10 August 2009; Australian Taxation Office, Submission SR 55, 7 August 2009. See Exposure Draft, Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009 (Cth); The Treasury, Discussion Paper for the Review of Taxation Secrecy and Disclosure Provisions (2006).

[18] Department of Defence, Submission SR 69, 14 August 2009.

[19] R Fraser, Submission SR 78, 21 August 2009.

[20] Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission SR 71, 16 August 2009.

[21] Ibid. See also Community and Public Sector Union, Submission SR 57, 7 August 2009.

[22] Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, A Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Civil Penalties and Enforcement Powers (2007), 13.

[23] The Treasury, Discussion Paper for the Review of Taxation Secrecy and Disclosure Provisions (2006), [2.1].

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid, [2.3].

[26] Explanatory Material, Exposure Draft, Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009 (Cth), [1.04]–[1.18].

[27] Australian Law Reform Commission, Review of Secrecy Laws, Discussion Paper 74 (2009), Proposal
12–3.

[28] Australia’s Right to Know, Submission SR 72, 17 August 2009; Community and Public Sector Union, Submission SR 57, 7 August 2009; Liberty Victoria, Submission SR 50, 5 August 2009; Civil Liberties Australia, Submission SR 47, 27 July 2009.

[29] Liberty Victoria, Submission SR 50, 5 August 2009.

[30] For example, Australian Securities & Investments Commission, Submission SR 41, 17 March 2009; NSW Young Lawyers Human Rights Committee, Submission SR 34, 4 March 2009; Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Submission SR 24, 19 February 2009; Australian Taxation Office, Submission SR 13, 16 February 2009; Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Submission SR 12, 13 February 2009.

[31] Attorney-General’s Department, Submission SR 36, 6 March 2009.

[32] Australian Crime Commission, Submission SR 75, 19 August 2009.

[33] Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Submission SR 24, 19 February 2009.

[34] Department of Health and Ageing, Submission SR 81, 28 August 2009.

[35] Australian Intelligence Community, Submission SR 37, 6 March 2009.

[36] Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Submission SR 18, 18 February 2009.

[37] Department of Human Services, Submission SR 26, 20 February 2009.

[38] Australian Law Reform Commission, Review of Secrecy Laws, Issues Paper 34 (2008).

[39] Australian Taxation Office, Submission SR 13, 16 February 2009.

[40] The Treasury, Submission SR 60, 10 August 2009.

[41] Australian Taxation Office, Submission SR 55, 7 August 2009.

[42]The Treasury, Discussion Paper for the Review of Taxation Secrecy and Disclosure Provisions (2006); Exposure Draft, Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009 (Cth).