Commentary
- This decision was based on the preceding legislation to the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (Vic.) (PDP Act), the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic.) (IP Act).
Facts
- M made a complaint to the Department of Human Services (Department) about another organisation which she believed was involved in a child stealing racket.
IPP 2.1(d)(i) – Use or disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a threat to public health, safety, or welfare
Submission
- M alleged that instead of investigating her complaint, the Department disclosed her personal information to a health service provider (HSP), which resulted in her being detained and interviewed about her mental health. This was despite her recently having seen her general practitioner who, in his opinion, advised that she showed no signs of mental illness.
- The Department contended that:
- it had not disclosed her residential address to the HSP;
- the HSP likely attended her residence because the Complainant had previously stated that she intended to commit suicide; and,
- even if the Department had provided her residential address, such disclosure would have been authorised under IPP 2.1(d)(i) of the IPP Act (equivalent to IPP 2.1(d)(i) of the PDP Act with the exception that the word ‘imminent’ has been dropped from the PDP Act).
Decision
- VCAT dismissed the complaint on the basis that the Department had not disclosed M’s residential address to the HSF. VCAT considered the evidence from the Department which demonstrated that the employee who M asserted had disclosed her residential address did not have knowledge of it.
- VCAT went on to state that even if the Department had disclosed the residential address to HSF, such disclosure would have been authorised under IPP 2.1(d)(i) of the IP Act (equivalent to IPP 2.1(d)(i) of the PDP Act with minor wording differences) given the threat M had made about committing suicide. However, given VCAT did not have to decide on this issue, it did not go into substantive reasoning.