01.	B Arnell

Full name: Brian Arnell

Question 1: 
Question 2: 
Question 3: 
Question 4: 
Question 5: 
Question 6: 
Question 7: 
Question 8: 
Question 9: 
Question 10: 
Question 11: 
Question 12: 
Question 13: 
Question 14: 
Question 15: 
Question 16: 
Question 17: 
Question 18: 
Question 19: 
Question 20: 
Question 21: 
Question 22: 
Question 23: 
Question 24: 
Question 25: 
I support the view that a complainant, who has received a determination or decision in response to a complaint relating to an invasion of privacy under existing legislation, being permitted to bring or continue a claim based on the statutory cause of action. Under this right should be included the situation where the Commissioner or his delegate has decided not to continue to investigate a privacy complaint.    
My own experience with making a privacy complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) provides evidence of the need for this right. The Commissioner’s delegate made a decision not to continue to investigate my privacy complaint. I asked for a statement of reasons and was unsatisfied by those reasons. I approached the Commonwealth Ombudsman and they advised that they would not investigate OAIC's findings of fact and law and that OAIC was not bound by any findings the Ombudsman may make on other matters.
My only right of review was to submit an application to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). This option would have been expensive and unsatisfactory because even if successful, this action that would not have resolved my privacy complaint. 
The unfairness of my situation is exacerbated by the fact that OAIC refused to address the clear and unambiguous evidence I presented that officers of the then Department of Education, Science and Training deliberately backdated documents and falsified dates in official records relating to my complaint. I submitted to OAIC that this behaviour in relation to my personal information was evidence that the use of my personal information was outside the scope of the purpose for which the information was collected and not otherwise directly related to that original purpose.
In December 2011, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) found former NSW Minister Tony Kelly acted corruptly by backdating a letter even though he gained no personal financial advantage and the State Government suffered no financial loss. I raised this example in my letter to OAIC of 20 December 2011 in conjunction with evidence obtained from an FOI request in support of my complaint.
However as previously stated OAIC closed my complaint without ever addressing these serious claims, the evidence I provided or my broader argument that this behaviour indicated that the use of my personal information was outside the scope of the purpose for which the information was collected and not otherwise directly related to that original purpose.
I hope that a new statutory cause of action will allow complainants other avenues if they are treated unsatisfactorily by agencies such as the OAIC and that the resulting judicial scrutiny will force OAIC to improve its performance. I have attached my letter to OAIC of 20 December 2011 including the attached FOI documents and OAIC’s Statement of Reasons of 15 March 2013 in support of this submission.
Question 26: 
Question 27: 
Question 28: 
Other comments: 
I will provide a copy of my letter to OAIC of 20 December 2011 including the attached FOI documents by other means as it is above the 1000kb limit for submissions.