16.08.2010

Arguments for removing the exemption

Lack of privacy protection for employee records40.34 Stakeholders noted that employers may hold sensitive personal information about their employees, such as health or financial information;[51] criminal convictions; and the results of pre-employment psychological testing.[52] Employees may be under economic pressure to provide personal information to their employers. This means that they have no effective choice

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Arguments for removing the exemption

39.37 The main arguments for removing the exemption include that: 39.38there are no appropriate criteria that could exempt only those small businesses that pose a low risk to privacy, because any definition of ‘small business’ would be arbitrary;39.39removing the exemption would reduce inconsistency and fragmentation in privacy regulation;39.40removing the exemption would facilitate trade with the

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Arguments for retaining the exemption

39.100 A number of stakeholders opposed the ALRC’s proposal to remove the small business exemption.[136] The main arguments for retaining the small business exemption are based on a view that it is necessary to achieve an appropriate balance between privacy protection and the ability of the small business sector to operate efficiently.[137] In particular, it

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Minimising costs of compliance on small businesses

39.192 In DP 72, the ALRC acknowledged that removing the small business exemption would have compliance cost implications for small businesses. The ALRC expressed the view, however, that there are a number of ways that unnecessary compliance costs can be minimised, including by simplifying the Privacy Act and streamlining the privacy principles, and by assisting

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Should state and territory authorities be exempt from the operation of the Act?

38.34 The report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee inquiry into the Privacy Act noted that there was concern that the exemption of state and territory authorities from the operation of the Privacy Act represented a significant gap in the Act’s coverage.[42] 38.35 In IP 31, the ALRC asked whether state and territory

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Commissions of inquiry

Royal Commissions38.2 A federal Royal Commission is a government inquiry established by the Governor-General pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth). The Royal Commissions Act allows the Governor-General, by Letters Patent, toissue such commissions, directed to such person or persons, as he thinks fit, requiring or authorizing [those persons] to make inquiry into and

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Australian Crime Commission

Background37.2 Organised crime is recognised as a major threat to individuals and to society. In adopting the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the main international instrument relied upon to combat such activity, the General Assembly of the United Nations stated that it was:Deeply concerned by the negative economic and social implications related to

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Integrity Commissioner

Background37.47 Corruption is a serious global phenomenon that undermines democratic institutions, jeopardises economic development, and threatens the stability and security of governments.[70] While there is no universally accepted definition of corruption, it is understood to include bribery, embezzlement, extortion, illicit enrichment, and abuse of functions, position or influence.[71] 37.48 The seriousness of the threat posed

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Other agencies with law enforcement functions

Background37.73 With the exception of the ACC, the Integrity Commissioner and staff members of ACLEI, law enforcement agencies and other agencies with law enforcement functions are covered by the Privacy Act and therefore must comply with the IPPs. Section 6(1) of the Privacy Act relevantly provides that, with certain exceptions, an agency includes ‘a body

Publications

Read more
16.08.2010

Submissions and consultations

36.50 In DP 72, the ALRC observed that the exemption of agencies listed under sch 2 of the FOI Act from the Privacy Act appeared to derive from their exempt status under the FOI Act. The ALRC noted that it had not received submissions from most of the relevant agencies and, accordingly, could not make

Publications

Read more