AFP v Hunter New England Local Health District [2012] NSWADT 141

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AFP v Hunter New England Local Health District [2012] NSWADT 141 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 20 July 2012 Jurisdiction: General Division Before: N Isenberg, Judicial member Decision: The application is dismissed Catchwords: Privacy - jurisdiction - matters not raised on internal review - IPPs applied Legislation Cited: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AFP (Applicant) Hunter New England Local Health District (Respondent) Representation: AFP (Applicant in person) Crown Solicitor Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 113257

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1The applicant, 'AFP' has held various nursing positions with the respondent between the 1960s and 2008. During 2008 and 2009, she applied for a further five nursing positions with the respondent but was unsuccessful in each of those applications. This appears to be the core of her concerns. 2On 11 January 2011, the applicant filed an application with the respondent under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the "GIPA Act") for access to her employment records. The applicant raised several privacy-related concerns arising from the documents with which she had been provided and she requested an internal review of the respondent's conduct under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act (PPIP Act), alleging a "breach of all 12IPPs as listed by NSW Privacy Commissioner in the 'Guidance for the Public Sector' Information Sheet". She complained in relation to the collection, security or storage, accuracy, use, and disclosure of her personal information, and 'other'. Attached to the application was a document entitled "Requests for changes, inclusions, removals & clarifications to my employment files" (the request for changes document) which listed 18 items. Those "items" variously requested the removal or amendment of several documents on the applicant's employment records, the inclusion of further documents on her employment records, and an explanation for the conduct evidenced by several documents on her employment records. 3An internal review was conducted by the respondent's Manager of Records, Privacy and Information Security, Mr Jackson. Although he found there was no breaches of the IPPs, in relation to some item she recommended that the applicant be provided with the opportunity to attach additional information to her records, and this recommendation was adopted. The applicant provided Mr Jackson with written statements in respect of all 18 items, and Mr Jackson agreed to have all of the statements included on the applicant's personnel file. The applicant also provided Mr Jackson with an incident report and evidence of her qualifications, which he also agreed to have included on her personnel file. 4Where the internal review application requested certain documents, Mr Jackson recommended that the respondent provide those documents to the applicant, and the respondent adopted this recommendation also. 5In relation to item 9 - discussed in more detail below - Mr Jackson's internal review report confirmed that NSW Health Support Services, (a separate agency), had amended the electronic payroll record of the applicant's employment with Calvary Retirement Communities Hunter-Manning Ltd ("Calvary") to show that she had left "of her own accord". He also recommended that the respondent amend any documentation on the applicant's personnel file relating to her employment with Calvary to reflect the fact that she left "of her own accord". The respondent then destroyed a copy of a payroll record held on the applicant's personnel file which had indicated that the applicant had been "dismissed" from employment with Calvary. The applicant was informed that her personnel file no longer contained any record of her employment with Calvary. 6Only one of Mr Jackson's recommendations was not adopted by the respondent: that the document summarizing the applicant's teamwork, communication and clinical practice skills be removed from her personnel file (item 16). 7Much of the above was occurring while the Tribunal was endeavoring to bring the matter before it to a resolution as an alternative to a hearing, or at least to narrow the issues that might remain to be resolved. Despite all the measures taken by the respondent, the applicant remains of the view that breaches of the PPIP Act are unresolved and hence remain for determination by the Tribunal. At the Tribunal's direction the applicant filed a further outline of her application on 22 December 2011 (the applicant's submissions). In respect of most items the applicant identified the IPPs which she asserted were relevant to her application. The applicant also has provided voluminous material and submissions, including a large folder of documents (the folder submissions), in which she amended some of the IPPs upon which she relied, made detailed submissions and attached various documents said to be relevant to each item. 8The parties agreed that the Tribunal would consider the application on the papers, including the issues raised by the respondent in relation to jurisdiction (see below).