In 1998 the NSW Parliament passed the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), known as the PPIP Act. Politicians described it as an attempt to enforce data protection principles consistent with best international standards.
In his second reading speech from September 1998 Mr Shaw, the then Attorney General of NSW, referred to the ICAC report into unauthorised release of government information. Famously, that report revealed “a massive illicit trade in information involving government departments, the police, lawyers, financial institutions and private investigators”, he said. The trade involved clear corruption, Mr Shaw added.
Mr Shaw’s speech informs that the PPIP Act was intended to constrain the use of data by public sector agencies. It was also to provide enforceable rights for people to obtain compensation for the breaches of their rights. However, others pointed to other benefits of the legislation. For instance, the PPIP Act was recognised as providing benefits to the finance sector and the government itself. As Mr Andrew Tink, the then member for Eastwood, remarked: without it, the NSW would “no longer be a part of the international financial network, the governmental network, the heart and soul of international trading, commodities or any network”.
Who polices the privacy legislation?
The review of breaches of the PPIP Act was initially given to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. Presently, after the reforms, the review is within the jurisdiction of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
What is the PPIP Act Series About?
PPIP Act Series originate from the question often perplexing the citizenry: was the legislation spawned to serve the individual or the government? Was it an attempt to protect the people? Or was it only a manoeuvre to create an illusion of protection? So that on paper, it looks like the protections are in place? Just to ensure that the flow of data from “international jurisdictions” does not dry up?
Mindful of the admitted history of corruption of the NSW Government employees who illicitly traded in information, the series look into the quality of protection afforded by the scheme set up by and around the PPIP Act. Does the NCAT provide the quality and independence referred to by legislation? Does the NSW Privacy Commissioner fulfill its functions? Is the quality of reviews pursuant to the PPIP Act up to scratch?
Yes, you do matter!
We want to hear about what had happened to you. If you have a related story that you would like to share, please contact us!