Ms Lindy Smith
Secretary
Australian Privacy Foundation

Dear Lindy

Thank you for your valuable suggestions about certain publications which are no longer on our website.

As you would expect Privacy NSW does not lightly make decisions about what should be on the website.  The purpose is, as you and the Foundation would understand, to provide accurate, relevant and up to date information to members of the community about current aspects of privacy law and policy.

We are about to embark on the year 2006.  The items which you refer to are postings which were relevant several years ago but have now been overtaken by more recent events.

We take the view that people who access our website may not all be interested in the history of the organisation and its publications, but may be interested in events which are happening now.

I am mindful of the possibility that If the items you suggest were reinstated on the website inquirers may select an item which has been superseded and may not understand that the information is comprehensively out of date and thus be misinformed.

The Guideline to the Workplace Surveillance Act which you refer to is a perfect example.  The new Act supersedes the previous legislation and the Guideline is therefore redundant and may mislead enquirers.  

The advice about the operation of the new Act has been provided by the Legislation and Policy Division of the Attorney General’s Department. It is an Act which is administered by the Department, not by Privacy NSW.  Nevertheless we receive many inquiries about its operation.  Members of the community who come to our website in search of an explanation now get it straight from the horse’s mouth – not through a Privacy NSW assessment of what the Act is about 

The current guideline makes it quite clear that it has been prepared by the Legislation and  Policy Division of the Attorney General’s Department.  There doesn’t seem to be much scope for confusion there.

Similarly with the advice about the tape recording of council meetings.  This advice has been superseded by rulings made by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and I  am therefore satisfied that it does not reflect the current state of the law.

As to your suggestion regarding our obligations under the State Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act, I am unaware of any requirements or even the suggestion that historical documents should be posted on the website.

These documents have not been destroyed; they merely no longer appear on our website.  However I would be grateful if you would identify particular provisions which require the publication of superseded documents on public sector agency websites. I am satisfied that our summary and statement of affairs obligations under the FOI Act to publish information about categories of documents held by the Office has been fully satisfied.

You may wish to know that in the coming months we shall be reviewing many of the items which appear on the website to make sure that they are correct and current and taking them off if they are not.  This is in line with our aim to try to keep the site accurate and informative.

So taking all this into account, we will not be placing the documents you suggest back on the website.  However, should members of the community ask for these historical documents we can certainly provide them

I shall pass on your comments about the accessibility of our website to the administrators of Lawlink, especially your view that “using proprietary web listing technologies which do not work in modem mainstream web – standard – complaint browsers (such as Safari) is evidence of testing, specification and design failure by Lawlink.”

I am sure they will find this observation most informative.

Kind regards.

John Dickie

John Dickie
Acting Privacy Commissioner