Invasion-of-privacy inquiry in Aust.

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34130, 17 April 1976, Page 15

Invasion-of-privacy inquiry in Aust.

pv.z. Press Assn —copyright) j see no reason why there

CANBERRA, April 16. The Australian Government has launched an inquiry into the possible invasion of privacy by the National Health Insurance Fund, Medibank, the Commonwealth police, and other Government departments.

should be wrong information on a file about an individual which may be used, in the course of government, against him,” Mr Ellicott said The commission had been specifically excluded from inquiring into possible invasion of privacy by the Australian Secret Intelligence organisation because Mr Justice Hope was already conducting a very thorough inquiry into that service. Mr Justice Hope would endeavour to see whether

The Attorney-General (Mr Robert Ellicott) has asked the Law Reform Commission to report on any undue invasions of privacy in areas controlled by the Government, and to recommend legislative protection for the rights of individuals. The commission's terms of reference include invasions of privacy which might arise from: information collected and stored by Government departments and authorities; the communication of this information to any other department or authority: the storage, or communication of, information collected by Medibank; the powers of the police and other officials to enter and search premises; and the power of people and authorities, other than the; courts, to summon citizens to answer questions or to produce documents. ■ The inquiry will be presided over by Mr Justice Kirby, who has commented: ! “The inquiry is not a job for a brains trust in a back ; room. It is vital that the public should be involved in this important investigation.! I have already found from! earlier statements that the concern about privacy is ' very much alive in our com'munity.” ! The other members of the •commission are: Mr F. G. “Brennan, Q.C.. of Brisbane: Professor A. C. Castles, of 'Adelaide; Mr J. Cain, of Melbourne: and Professor Gordon Hawkins, of Sydney. : Speaking in the tele- • j vision programme “Face the Nation," Mr Elli-i 1 cott said he believed that : lthe acquisition of Govern-1 'ment information had to be. J subjected to very carefull -Iscrutiny to ensure that the individual’s privacy 7 was proitected. but there had to be a

balance between the interests of the public, in allowing the Government to have I the information necessary •for it to govern, and the •interests of the individual, ‘that his privacy should not he intruded upon toe; i greatly. I The commission must con-| I sider how far people should be able to look at Govern-j ment files concerning them.; and how far they should bej able to correct information! in those files. 1 ''As a matter of principle,!

greater protection could be given to the individual, and whether some right of appeal might be given against security reports on individuals. The Law Reform Commission would also examine what changes were necessary to provide proper protection of the individual’s privacy. This would include areas such as creditreference systems, debt collectors, private investigators, employment agencies, the media, bugging devices, and entry on to private property bv salesmen and canvassers.