Appealing a Centrelink Decision to the AAT

[krystal]

Hello, I guess my main imperative was to make sure people know that:

If you challenge a Centrelink decision by appealing to the Australian Administration Appeal Tribunal you need to give up all rights to confidentiality of your medical and health records.

Under the "guiding principle" of open justice the AAT will publish your complete medical/health/sensitive information on an open public website for anyone in the world with an internet connection to access and read.

It's not like I'm asking them to go against this principle and not to publish the case, all I asked was that they pseudonymise/anonymise my name.

In my case, having a psychological issue at the time of the claim, any potential employer can look at this file and see that I have a fully diagnosed, but not fully treated or stabilised condition.

And it is there in perpetuity even though it is not longer current or an issue. I'm not sure employers are going to call me in for an interview after reading that.

I am surprised and disappointed that even though the AAT website and Privacy Policy states that your confidentiality is protected under the Privacy Act 1988, they will NOT ensure medical and health records remain confidential unless the Tribunal Member makes the decision to allow them to do so.

Here is how it went:
-I asked the AAT for a confidentiality order under s35 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which states:"the Tribunal is to pay due regard to any reasons in favour of giving such a direction, including the confidential nature (if applicable) of the information".
-They replied that I needed to given reasons for this order.
-I complied with reasons including my physical safety, my mental health, data security, future employment prospects, and financial reasons.
-The Department of Human Services opposed the order (no reasons were given)
-The Tribunal Member denied the application (no reasons were given)
-A letter from the Registry stated that the reasons weren't good enough.
-I made a complaint to the AAT about their handling of my sensitive information
-They have replied that it's not up to them but the member and when I have 'better reasons' for my medical information not to be made public, I can make another application to the Tribunal Member.

I am currently applying to the Information Commissioner and notifying my federal member (which at the moment is a whole other box of snakes) but I'm not sure anything at this stage is going to help.

I just wanted people to be aware that the choice/decision you need to make is:
"Do I want to appeal a Centrelink decision - OR - do I want my medical records to remain confidential and not let that pesky Prince of Nigeria read them"?

This is choice you need to make that they will NOT tell you about.

[Banjo]

Welcome to the board Krystal.
I moved your thread as it will stay visible longer in this sub-forum.

This is quite disquieting information, I can think of no reason why Centrelink would want to publicise your personal details other than to intimidate you.
I hope your MP can help, it will depend on his political leaning and you may like to look at political alternatives in the electorate.

[gized]

What the ? This is absurd¡!!!! It's clear the whole system is ....!!
Definite go to the minister, the media, the privacy commissioner. It is not necessary your details are published. Yes they could use initials only. What f... Mongrels.

I would not stop a challenge if they are wrong.

Thank you for highlighting this as ibwas not aware. Please it would be good to get updated on this. But I think current affairs would love this story.

[maxpower]

May 14, 2016 19:21:21 GMT 7 gized said:

... But I think current affairs would love this story.

First thing, Hello Krystal, that is interesting info and quite bazaar, as Banjo says it looks like intimidation pure and simple. 

If krystal wants privacy then the media is probably not an option and Current affair doesn't always end well for the victim in these stories, if one was to take it to the media then the ABC 7.30 report would give you a better less sensational run. The  suggestion by banjo to take it up with the local federal member and CC a copy of the complaint to the minister (caretaker).

You seem to be across the subject but have you thought about making a complaint to The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner regarding the breach of privacy.

[gized]

Agreed, ABC better for this story.

[Banjo]

We've contacted the media on a number of occasions but always backed off, usually after a brief discussion with one of their representatives.
Some control would be required of the way the story was presented and that is never going to happen.

[scallywag]

Someone in Vic could run it past Jon Faine at ABC 774. He does have a sense of right and wrong.

[krystal]

Thanks for the suggestion about the 7:30 report.
Application to the Information Commission is in progress and I will keep you updated.

[krystal]

UPDATE:

I have been informed by the AAT Policy and Legal Department that:

"The provisions of the AAT Act permit the publication of what would otherwise be personal information under the Privacy Act 1988."

This basically means that the AAT will tell you they will follow the Privacy Act and the Australian Privacy Principles but have no intention of doing so as the AAT Act says they don't have to.


And here's the knife in the neck bit - Because of a ruling in Johns vs Australian Securities Commission:
Information published under the AAT Act enters the public domain by a lawful gate. Once in the public domain, it can be freely used or disseminated.

And that means anyone can disclose or use your medical or health information with no recourse as the information is in the public domain and does not have protection of the Privacy Act or any other legislation.

Nice huh

[Banjo]

It seems crazy that something as relatively impersonal as a case by the Australian Securities Commission can be compared to an appeal by a disable person.

[Denis-NFA]

May 19, 2016 18:35:48 GMT 7 Banjo said:

It seems crazy that something as relatively impersonal as a case by the Australian Securities Commission can be compared to an appeal by a disable person.

Totally agree Banjo

But I think it has something to do with the whole of Government FOI thingy.

Having said that, and this is where you would need to check with a pro bono solicitor krystal, but there are grounds for suppressing personal information.

I don't know what they are but you see it in regards criminal cases, child support cases, whatever and I would have thought that the reasons you gave were sufficient but perhaps you need to give actual instances.

Example, if someone has/had made threats to you and you have reported that and sworn a statement then AAT type folk have no cause to publish your personal details because they would be aiding and abetting the reported person or persons that are/were threatening you.

Just my hazy recollection.

All the best krystal

[krystal]

Banjo:
Case law made by the High Court of Australia as was Johns vs ASC can be used as a precedent/defense for anyone that, in the future, discloses any information "in the public domain".

Denis:
In my Application for Confidentiality, I did give them actual instances of how disclosure would impact me.
(Including the unsolved murder of the person in identical living conditions as me less than 2 minutes from me).


Have sent of the Application to the Information Commissioner.
Keep your fingers crossed for me

[murphy]

Certainly keeping fingers crossed for you Krystal. I've thought a lot about how I would feel if my medical conditions were published. I'd feel ill. There's no shame in disability, but there IS dignity in privacy. People with disabilities are treated as second rate citizens over and over again.

Please keep us updated.

[Deleted]

Greens senators you should email this to as well. They would likely follow up on things like this.

[gized]

I would be telling them I will end my life, if this was disclosed.

Watch them stop!!!


Gized