The Federal Privacy Commissioner has published case notes 1 – 4, 2006.

The cases relate to personal information handled by a credit provider, a banking institution, insurance company and an Australian Government agency.

Of particular interest is D v Banking Institution [2006] PrivCmrA 4 in which the complainant alleged that the banking institution was gathering unnecessary marital status information for the purposes of opening a deposit account.

The banking institution advised the complainant that it was unable to open the account without entering information into the ‘marital status’ field on its computer system. It offered a ‘workaround’ as system changes could not occur quickly. (The workaround was that it would use the response of “single” in the mandatory data field, and it would include a note stating that the entry may not reflect actual marital status.)

The Commissioner’s view was that the collection of marital status information for the purposes of opening a deposit account was unnecessary. The banking institution agreed that the collection of marital status information would not be considered necessary for its functions or activities; in this case because the complainant’s marital status had no bearing on the complainant’s eligibility to open the account. In consultation with the Commissioner the banking institution agreed that it would change its computer system so that when individuals applied for a deposit account, they would no longer be required to disclose their marital status if they did not wish to. Further the banking institution agreed to report to the Commissioner on the progress of the implementation program and would also raise the matter with its industry body as it appeared to be an industry-wide practice.