text:
Home / Publications / For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC Report 108) / 37. Agencies with Law Enforcement Functions / Integrity Commissioner
For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC Report 108)
Part A—Introduction
Part B—Developing Technology
Part C—Interaction, Inconsistency and Fragmentation
Part D—The Privacy Principles
Part E—Exemptions
Part F—Office of the Privacy Commissioner
Part G—Credit Reporting Provisions
Part H—Health Services and Research
Part I—Children, Young People and Adults Requiring Assistance
Part J—Telecommunications
Part K—Protection of a Right to Personal Privacy
Model Unified Privacy Principles (UPPs)
UPP 1. Anonymity and Pseudonymity
UPP 2. Collection
UPP 3. Notification
UPP 4. Openness
UPP 5. Use and Disclosure
UPP 6. Direct Marketing (only applicable to organisations)
UPP 7. Data Quality
UPP 8. Data Security
UPP 9. Access and Correction
UPP 10. Identifiers (only applicable to organisations)
UPP 11. Cross-border Data Flows
Introduction to the ALRC's Privacy Inquiry
Extensive public engagement
Key recommendations
The scope of the Inquiry
Related privacy inquiries
The meaning of privacy
Information privacy: the commercial context
Organisation of this Report
Further processes
2. Privacy Regulation in Australia
Federal regulation of privacy
State and territory regulation of privacy
Other forms of privacy regulation
3. Achieving National Consistency
The federal system
Is national consistency important?
National legislation to regulate the private sector
An intergovernmental agreement
A review
Other methods to achieve national consistency
4. Regulating Privacy
Regulatory theory
ALRC's preference for principles-based regulation
ALRC's preference for compliance-oriented regulation
Scope for co-regulation
5. The Privacy Act: Name, Structure and Objects
Overview of the Privacy Act
The structure of the Act
The name of the Act
The objects of the Act
6. The Privacy Act: Some Important Definitions
What is 'personal information'?
What is not 'personal information'?
Generally available publications
7. Privacy Beyond the Individual
Privacy and group rights generally
Extension of the Privacy Act to groups?
Traditional laws and customs of Indigenous groups
Privacy protocols for Indigenous groups
Corporations and commercial entities
8. Privacy of Deceased Individuals
Issues Paper 31
Discussion Paper proposals
9. Overview: Impact of Developing Technology on Privacy
Privacy-enhancing technologies
Other wireless technologies
Data-matching and data-mining
Biometric systems
DNA-based technologies
Voice over Internet Protocol
Location detection technologies
Other developing technologies
10. Accommodating Developing Technology in a Regulatory Framework
Should the Privacy Act be technology neutral?
Key themes in a 'technology aware' framework
Oversight powers of the OPC
Technology-specific guidance on the application of the model UPPs
Mandating standards?
Co-regulation between the OPC and industry
Technology-related amendments to the Privacy Act
11. Individuals, the Internet and Generally Available Publications
Individuals acting in a personal capacity
12. Identity Theft
What is identity theft?
How prevalent is it?
Criminalising identity theft
Other responses to identity theft
Identity theft and privacy laws
13. Overview: Interaction, Inconsistency and Fragmentation
The costs of inconsistency and fragmentation
Federal information laws
Required or authorised by or under law
Interaction with state and territory laws
14. The Costs of Inconsistency and Fragmentation
Compliance burden and cost
Multiple regulators
15. Federal Information Laws
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
Access, correction and annotation
Archives Act 1983 (Cth)
A single information Act?
A single regulator?
Obligations of confidence
16. Required or Authorised by or Under Law
'Required or authorised by or under law'
Census and Statistics Act 1905 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth)
17. Interaction with State and Territory Laws
Interaction of federal, state and territory regimes
Intergovernmental bodies
State and territory regulators
Privacy rules, codes and guidelines
Residential tenancy databases
18. Structural Reform of the Privacy Principles
Introduction to Part D
Development of current Australian privacy principles
Principles-based regulation
Level of detail, guidance and protection
Towards a single set of privacy principles
Application of the Unified Privacy Principles
Scope and structure of Unified Privacy Principles
19. Consent
A separate privacy principle dealing with consent?
20. Anonymity and Pseudonymity
Expanding the anonymity principle
Application of the 'Anonymity and Pseudonymity' principle
Guidance on the 'Anonymity and Pseudonymity' principle
Summary of 'Anonymity and Pseudonymity' principle
21. Collection
Current coverage by IPPs and NPPs
Collection from the individual
Unsolicited personal information
Other aspects of the 'Collection' principle
Summary of 'Collection' principle
22. Sensitive Information
Collection of sensitive information
Regulation of other aspects of handling sensitive information
23. Notification
Location of notification requirements: separate principle?
Nature and timing of notification obligation
Circumstances in which notification obligations arise
Subject matter of notification
Summary of 'Notification' principle
24. Openness
A separate 'Openness' principle
Regulatory mechanism: 'Privacy Policies'
Content of a Privacy Policy
Availability of Privacy Policy
Short form privacy notices
Summary of 'Openness' principle
25. Use and Disclosure
A single 'Use and Disclosure' principle
Circumstances in which use and disclosure is permitted
Additional exceptions?
Logging use and disclosure
Summary of 'Use and Disclosure' principle
26. Direct Marketing
Application of direct marketing principle to agencies
Relationship between privacy principles and other legislation
Content of the 'Direct Marketing' principle
Direct marketing to vulnerable individuals
Other OPC guidance
Summary of 'Direct Marketing' principle
27. Data Quality
Application of the 'Data Quality' principle to agencies
Scope of the 'Data Quality' principle
Balancing data quality and other privacy interests
Summary of 'Data Quality' principle
28. Data Security
Towards a single data security principle
Prevention of misuse and loss of personal information
Information destruction and retention requirements
Summary of 'Data Security' principle
29. Access and Correction
The 'Access and Correction' principle
Access to personal information: general framework
Access to personal information: exceptions
Access to personal information: intermediaries
Correction of personal information
Annotation of disputed information
Procedural requirements for access and correction requests
Guidance on the 'Access and Correction' principle
Summary of 'Access and Correction' principle
30. Identifiers
Is there a need for an 'Identifiers' principle?
Application of 'Identifiers' principle to agencies?
Definition of 'identifier'
Content of privacy principle dealing with identifiers
Multi-purpose identifiers
Regulation of Tax File Numbers
Summary of 'Identifiers' principle
31. Cross-border Data Flows
International privacy protection
Trustmarks
Current coverage of cross-border data flows
Content of the model 'Cross-border Data Flows' principle
Interaction with the 'Use and Disclosure' principle
Definition of 'transfer'
Related bodies corporate
List of overseas jurisdictions
Cross-border enforcement
OPC Guidance
Requirement of notice that personal information is being sent overseas
Summary of 'Cross-border Data Flows' principle
32. Additional Privacy Principles
'Accountability' principle
'Prevention of Harm' principle
'No Disadvantage' principle
33. Overview: Exemptions from the Privacy Act
Privacy Act exemptions
Exemptions under international instruments
Should there be any exemptions from the Privacy Act?
The number and scope of exemptions
Complexity of the exemption provisions
Location of the exemption provisions
34. Intelligence and Defence Intelligence Agencies
The defence and defence intelligence agencies
Rationale for the exemption of the intelligence and defence intelligence agencies
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
35. Federal Courts and Tribunals
Federal courts
Federal tribunals
Access to court and tribunal records
36. Exempt Agencies under the Freedom of Information Act
Australian Fair Pay Commission
Schedule 2, Part I, Division 1 of the FOI Act
Schedule 2, Part II, Division 1 of the FOI Act
ALRC's view
37. Agencies with Law Enforcement Functions
Australian Crime Commission
Other agencies with law enforcement functions
38. Other Public Sector Exemptions
Commissions of inquiry
State and territory authorities
Prescribed state and territory instrumentalities
State and territory government business enterprises
Opt-in provision
Should state and territory authorities be exempt from the operation of the Act?
39. Small Business Exemption
Discussion Paper proposal
Arguments for removing the exemption
Arguments for retaining the exemption
Compliance costs
Minimising costs of compliance on small businesses
40. Employee Records Exemption
Evaluative material
Location of privacy provisions concerning employee records
41. Political Exemption
Exemption for registered political parties, political acts and practices
Guidance on applying the Privacy Act to the political process
42. Journalism Exemption
Retaining an exemption for journalistic acts and practices
Scope of the journalism exemption
Media privacy standards
43. Other Private Sector Exemptions
Personal or non-business use
Change in partnership
44. New Exemptions or Exceptions
Alternative dispute resolution bodies
Establishing, pursuing and defending legal rights
Archivists and archival organisations
Declared emergencies
45. Overview: Office of the Privacy Commissioner
Facilitating compliance with the Privacy Act
Structure of the OPC
Powers of the OPC
Privacy codes
Investigation and resolution of privacy complaints
Enforcing the Privacy Act
Summary of recommendations to address systemic issues
46. Structure of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner
Structure, functions and powers
Manner of exercise of powers
Privacy Advisory Committee
47. Powers of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner
Oversight powers
Personal Information Digest
Privacy impact assessments
Compliance powers
Self-auditing
Functions under other Acts
Public interest determinations
48. Privacy Codes
Part IIIAA Privacy codes
Binding codes
49. Investigation and Resolution of Privacy Complaints
Investigating privacy complaints
Transferring complaints to other bodies
Resolution of privacy complaints
Other issues in the complaint-handling process
50. Enforcing the Privacy Act
Enforcing 'own motion' investigations
Enforcing determinations
Reports by the Commissioner
Other enforcement mechanisms following non-compliance
51. Data Breach Notification
Rationale for data breach notification
Models of data breach notification laws
52. Overview: Credit Reporting
What is credit reporting?
Credit reporting agencies
Background to national regulation
53. Credit Reporting Provisions
Application of the credit reporting provisions
Content of credit information files
Accuracy and security of personal information
Consent and credit reporting
Rights of access, correction and notification
Responsibilities and powers of the OPC
Remedies and penalties
54. Approach to Reform
Part IIIA and the NPPs
Repeal and new regulation under the Act
Application of the regulations
Credit reporting information
Credit providers
Application to foreign credit providers
Consumer and commercial credit
Review of the regulations
Credit reporting code
55. More Comprehensive Credit Reporting
'Positive' or 'more comprehensive' credit reporting?
Australia's approach to more comprehensive credit reporting
Regulation in other jurisdictions
The argument for more comprehensive credit reporting
Benefits of more comprehensive credit reporting
Problems with more comprehensive credit reporting
Empirical studies
Models of more comprehensive credit reporting
Other aspects of the model
56. Collection and Permitted Content of Credit Reporting Information
Collection and notification
Permitted content of credit reporting information
Identifying information
'Negative' information
Prohibited content of credit reporting information
Debts of children and young people
Notification of collection
57. Use and Disclosure of Credit Reporting Information
Use and disclosure of credit reporting information
Mortgage and trade insurers
'Pre-screening'
Disclosure of reports relating to credit worthiness
58. Data Quality and Security
Data quality and credit reporting information
Regulating data quality
Data quality issues
Data quality obligations of credit reporting agencies
Auditing credit reporting information
Deletion of credit reporting information
59. Access and Correction, Complaint Handling and Penalties
Access and correction obligations
Access and correction in practice
Third party access
Notification of adverse credit reports
Information about credit scoring processes
External dispute resolution
Time limits on disputed credit reporting information
Investigation and resolution of credit reporting complaints
60. Regulatory Framework for Health Information
National consistency
A separate set of Health Privacy Principles?
61. Electronic Health Information Systems
Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits databases
62. The Privacy Act and Health Information
Definition of 'health information'
Definition of 'health service'
Agencies and organisations
Provision of health services
63. Privacy (Health Information) Regulations
Use and disclosure of health information
Access to health information
Management, funding and monitoring of health services
64. Research: Current Arrangements
Health and medical research in Australia
Research and the use of personal information
Information Privacy Principles
National Privacy Principles
Section 95 and 95A Guidelines
65. Research: Recommendations for Reform
Research in areas other than health and medical
Definition of research
The public interest balance
Impracticable to seek consent
Human Research Ethics Committees
Research exceptions to the model Unified Privacy Principles
66. Research: Databases and Data Linkage
Establishing databases
Using and linking information in databases
67. Children, Young People and Attitudes to Privacy
Generational differences in attitudes to privacy
Attitudes of young people to privacy
ALRC consultations with young people
Online social networking
68. Decision Making by and for Individuals Under the Age of 18
Privacy rights of children and young people at international law
Existing Australian laws relating to privacy of individuals under the age of 18
Research on capacity
Capacity and health information
Possible models for assessing capacity
69. Particular Privacy Issues Affecting Children and Young People
Online consumers and direct marketing issues
Identification in criminal matters and in court records
Child welfare and juvenile justice
Taking photographs and other images
70. Third Party Representatives
Third party decision making under the Privacy Act
Problems with the Privacy Act
Adults with a temporary or permanent incapacity
Third party representatives acting with consent
Implementing third party arrangements
71. Telecommunications Act
Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth)
Interaction between the Privacy Act and the Telecommunications Act
Are two privacy regimes necessary?
A redraft of the Part
A review of telecommunications regulation
Does the Telecommunications Act provide adequate privacy protection?
Small business exemption
Criminal or civil penalties?
Telecommunications regulators
72. Exceptions to the Use and Disclosure Offences
Exceptions to the use and disclosure offences
Performance of person's duties
Threat to person's life or health
Knowledge of person concerned
Implicit consent
Business needs of other carriers or service providers
Specially protected information
Credit reporting information and credit worthiness
The regulation of public number directories
Integrated public number database
Public number directories not sourced from the IPND
Are public number directories desirable?
Charging a fee for an unlisted number
73. Other Telecommunications Privacy Issues
Interception and access
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act
Interaction with the Privacy Act
Communications and 'telecommunications data'
Retention and destruction of records
Spam and telemarketing
Should the Privacy Act regulate spam and telemarketing?
Spam Act
Do Not Call Register Act
74. Protecting a Right to Personal Privacy
Right to personal privacy—developments in Australia and elsewhere
NSWLRC Consultation Paper on invasion of privacy
Recognising an action for breach of privacy in Australia
37.47 Corruption is a serious global phenomenon that undermines democratic institutions, jeopardises economic development, and threatens the stability and security of governments.[70] While there is no universally accepted definition of corruption, it is understood to include bribery, embezzlement, extortion, illicit enrichment, and abuse of functions, position or influence.[71]
37.48 The seriousness of the threat posed by corruption has been recognised by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which adopted the United Nations Convention against Corruption on 31 October 2003. The Convention requires that parties to the Convention ensure the existence of independent anti-corruption bodies that implement measures to prevent and combat corruption, and, in particular, 'a body, bodies or persons specialised in combating corruption through law enforcement' that are independent and free from any undue influence.[72]
37.49 Commencing operation in December 2006, the ACLEI was established to detect and investigate corruption in the AFP, the ACC, the former NCA and prescribed Australian Government agencies with law enforcement functions.[73] It is headed by the Integrity Commissioner, whose functions include:
investigating and reporting on corruption issues;
referring corruption issues to law enforcement agencies for investigation;
managing, overseeing or reviewing the investigation of corruption by law enforcement agencies;
conducting public inquiries into corruption;
collecting, analysing and communicating information and intelligence relating to corruption; and
making reports and recommendations to the responsible minister concerning the need or desirability of legislative or administrative actions on corruption issues.[74]
37.50 The ACLEI may conduct investigations through the use of various law enforcement powers, including the application for, and execution of, arrest and search warrants, participation in controlled operations, use of surveillance devices, interception of telecommunications, access to stored communications and use of assumed identities.[75] Additionally, the Integrity Commissioner has similar powers to a Royal Commission, including the power to execute search warrants, conduct public or private hearings, summon people to attend hearings to give evidence or produce any document or thing, and take possession of, copy or retain any document or thing.[76]
37.51 The Integrity Commissioner is exempt from the operation of the Privacy Act.[77] Acts and practices in relation to a record that has originated with, or has been received from, the Integrity Commissioner or a staff member of the ACLEI, also are exempt.[78] In addition, since the Integrity Commissioner is an 'enforcement body' under the Act,[79] personal information may be disclosed by an organisation to the Integrity Commissioner in certain circumstances, including where the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting criminal offences, or the prevention, detection, investigation or remedying of seriously improper conduct.[80]
37.52 The Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth) (LEIC Act) imposes certain confidentiality requirements on the ACLEI staff.[81] A current or former ACLEI staff member must not record, divulge or communicate any information acquired in the course of carrying out his or her duties, except in the performance of those duties.[82]
Oversight and accountability mechanisms
37.53 The Integrity Commissioner is required to give an annual report to the Minister for Home Affairs to be presented to the Parliament.[83] The Commissioner also is required to give investigation and inquiry reports to the Minister if public hearings were held in the course of an investigation.[84] The Minister must remove certain information—such as information that may endanger a person's life or physical safety or prejudice certain proceedings—before tabling such a report in Parliament.[85] The Integrity Commissioner also may give special reports to the Minister on the operations of his or her office for presentation to the Parliament.[86]
37.54 The Integrity Commissioner must notify the Minister of any issue concerning the corrupt conduct of a current or former ACLEI staff member, and staff are under a similar obligation to report corruption by the Integrity Commissioner.[87] Any member of the public also may refer to the Minister an allegation of corruption in the ACLEI or provide the Minister with information relating to such an allegation.[88] The Minister may refer the issue to the Integrity Commissioner for investigation, or authorise a special investigator—who has the same investigative and reporting powers that would be available to the ACLEI—to investigate the issue.[89]
37.55 After the first three years of operation, the Minister must cause an independent review of the ACLEI Act to be undertaken, unless a parliamentary committee or the Parliament Joint Committee on the ACLEI has started or completed a review of the operation of the Act before the end of the three-year period.[90]
37.56 The LEIC Actestablished a Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACLEI.[91] The functions of the Committee are to
monitor and review the Integrity Commissioner's performance of his or her functions;
examine the annual reports and special reports of the Integrity Commissioner;
examine and report on trends and changes in corruption issues and recommend changes to the functions, powers and procedures of the Integrity Commissioner; and
conduct an inquiry into any question in connection with the Committee's duties that is referred by either House of Parliament.[92]
37.57 In addition, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has the power to investigate complaints against the ACLEI that relate to administrative matters.[93] The Integrity Commissioner also is subject to regular inspection and monitoring by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in relation to the exercise of his or her powers to carry out controlled operations under Part IAB of the Crimes Act, use surveillance devices under the Surveillance Devices Act, and undertake telecommunications interception and access stored communications under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act.[94]
37.58 State and territory jurisdictions that have anti-corruption bodies commonly provide for their partial exemption from the operation of privacy laws or standards. In New South Wales, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission are not required to comply with the information protection principles under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW), except in connection with the exercise of their administrative and educative functions.[95] In Victoria, the Office of Police Integrity falls within the definition of 'law enforcement agency' and therefore is not required to comply with a number of Information Privacy Principles under the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic).[96] Similarly, the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission is defined as a 'law enforcement agency' under the Information Standard No 42 (Qld) and therefore is exempt from compliance with five of the 11 Information Privacy Principles under the Standard.[97]
37.59 Under the Information Privacy Bill 2007 (WA), the Corruption and Crime Commission in Western Australia generally will be exempt from compliance with privacy legislation.[98]
37.60 In DP 72, the ALRC expressed the preliminary view that government agencies that perform an oversight role, such as the Integrity Commissioner, serve an important public interest in ensuring that government agencies that are vested with coercive powers are monitored and held accountable. This public interest should, however, be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of personal information. The ALRC noted the OPC's submission on the Issues Paper, Review of Privacy (IP 31) that it would be desirable for the ACLEI to develop information-handling guidelines, or alternatively, for the Privacy Act to apply to the administrative operations of the ACLEI.[99] The ALRC proposed that the Integrity Commissioner should be partially exempt from the operation of the Privacy Act except in respect of the non-administrative operations of his or her office.[100] In addition, the ALRC proposed that the Integrity Commissioner should be subject to information-handling guidelines in respect of the non-administrative operations of his or her office.[101]
37.61 Some stakeholders supported the proposal to extend the coverage of the Privacy Act to the Integrity Commissioner in respect of the administrative operations of his or her office.[102] The Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre submitted that no agency should be completely exempt from compliance with fundamental human rights and administrative law principles. It argued that agencies like the ACLEI should be required to justify any exemption from both the Privacy Act and the related provisions of the FOI Act. It also suggested that, where an exemption is justified, information-handling guidelines should be developed and published in consultation with the OPC.[103]
37.62 In contrast, the ACLEI submitted that a complete exemption from the operation of the Privacy Act is necessary for its effective operation. It argued that the exemption is necessary for the purposes of:
ensuring the ACLEI's inquisitorial power, which may be used to gather intelligence about a corruption issue, is not subject to unintended fetter;
restricting possibilities for counter-surveillance tactics to be used against the ACLEI that might otherwise frustrate the ACLEI's operations, having particular regard to the law enforcement skills, knowledge, and access to information of those who may be subject to corruption inquiries; and
ensuring there are no impediments to the voluntary flow of information from any source that might identify corruption.[104]
37.63 The ACLEI submitted that its information handling already is sufficiently regulated by provisions under the LEIC Act, including provisions concerning its objects, functions and confidentiality requirements. The ACLEI argued that its exemption poses a very small risk to the privacy of individuals, because it collects little personal information of an administrative nature in practice and that information would be limited in scope. The ACLEI stated that it only has 10 investigative, legal, policy and corporate staff and therefore its information-handling practices in respect of its administrative operations would affect few people. In addition, the ACLEI submitted that:
The Integrity Commissioner recognises the importance of appropriately handling personal information. As far as possible, the Information Privacy Principles and the Privacy Commissioner's Guidelines form an important part of ACLEI's management of personal information.[105]
37.64 The ACLEI suggested that it was more comparable to the ACC than to oversight bodies, in that both the ACLEI and the ACC use similar investigative powers and methods, as well as inquisitorial powers, in the performance of their functions. The ACLEI submitted that, while it has an oversight role, there are four critical differences between the ACLEI and other oversight bodies such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which relate to:
the Integrity Commissioner's coercive inquisitorial power which may be exercised in a public or a private hearing;
the ACLEI's law enforcement function and intrusive powers;
the special nature of those who may fall subject to the ACLEI's investigations—law enforcement officers engaged in corruption, but who are also skilled in countersurveillance and other law enforcement methodologies; and
a focus on achieving prosecutions and disciplinary outcomes, rather than remedies for complainants.[106]
37.65 In addition, the ACLEI submitted that a partial exemption that requires it to comply with the Privacy Act in respect of its administrative operations would be an impractical and disproportionate response to the issue of privacy. The ACLEI argued that, due to its investigative and intelligence-gathering methodologies, it is not always possible to distinguish between its administrative and non-administrative operations—especially since its covert operations relate to personnel and financial management that should not be subject to normal constraints on use and disclosure.
While this problem may affect other law enforcement agencies that use covert methodologies, including paid informants, in the case of the ACLEI the risk of compromise is increased because of the counter-surveillance knowledge of targets of the ACLEI's investigations, who are themselves trained in similar methodologies.[107]
37.66 The ACLEI also argued that the coverage of its administrative operations by the Privacy Act would pose a risk to its effective operation and the personal safety of some of its employees and those who give assistance to it. ACLEI stated that, since it may become a target for infiltration and compromise, administrative records concerning current or former employees should not be made available to the employee and their use or disclosure should not be constrained.[108]
37.67 Moreover, ACLEI suggested that, where federal, state and international agencies are not compelled to provide information about corruption to the ACLEI, the narrowing of its privacy exemption may have an adverse impact on the willingness of these agencies to volunteer information.[109]
37.68 On the other hand, the ACLEI accepted the ALRC's proposal that the Integrity Commissioner, in consultation with the OPC, develop and publish information-handling guidelines for the ACLEI.[110] This proposal also was supported by other stakeholders.[111]
37.69 Due to the serious threat to society posed by corruption, the ACLEI is given coercive information-gathering powers and inquisitorial powers in carrying out its functions. While the ACLEI is not subject to the Privacy Act, it is subject to confidentiality provisions under the LEIC Actand oversight by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACLEI and the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It also has reporting obligations to the AGD and, in the event of a suggestion of corruption, the Minister for Home Affairs.
37.70 Like the ACC, therefore, the ACLEI is subject to a separate system of oversight and accountability. This separate system accommodates the tension between oversight requirements and the need to avoid disclosure of the ACLEI's sensitive operations. In these circumstances, the OPC may not be the appropriate body to deal with complaints against the ACLEI. In addition, the ALRC accepts the submission by the ACLEI that a partial exemption that applies to the Integrity Commissioner in respect of the administrative operations of his or her office may be impractical, for example, matters relating to ACLEI's covert operations concern law enforcement officers, which includes ACLEI's officers, it may not always be possible to distinguish between the administrative and non-administrative operations of the ACLEI.
37.71 In light of these considerations, the Integrity Commissioner and the staff members of ACLEI should continue to be exempt from the operation of the Privacy Act. They should be required, however, to comply with information-handling guidelines which should be developed and published in consultation with the OPC. The development of such guidelines will ensure that personal information is handled appropriately, without compromising the ACLEI's operations. The guidelines should reflect the model UPPs to the maximum extent possible. In line with the ALRC's recommendation concerning the ACC, such guidelines also should address the conditions to be imposed on the recipients of personal information disclosed by the Integrity Commissioner or the ACLEI in relation to the further handling of that information. This will ensure that the continuity of privacy protection of personal information held on the ACLEI's records is preserved. Further, the information-handling guidelines should address whether there is a need to establish a suitable complaint-handling mechanism for privacy-related complaints that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
37.72 The ALRC notes that the development and publication of such information-handling guidelines received support from both the OPC and the ACLEI. As mentioned above, the ACLEI advised that it has commenced discussion with the OPC concerning the development of such guidelines, which are to be monitored by its Internal Audit Committee.[112] In addition to the ACLEI's Internal Audit Committee, compliance with the information-handling guidelines also should be monitored by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACLEI.
Recommendation 37-2 (a) The Integrity Commissioner, in consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, should develop and publish information-handling guidelines for the Integrity Commissioner and the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). The information-handling guidelines should address the conditions to be imposed on the recipients of personal information disclosed by the Integrity Commissioner or the ACLEI in relation to the further handling of that information.
(b) The Internal Audit Committee of the ACLEI and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ACLEI should monitor compliance by the Integrity Commissioner and the ACLEI with the information-handling guidelines.
[70] See United Nations Convention against Corruption, 9 December 2003, [2006] ATS 2, (entered into force generally on 14 December 2005), Preamble. The Convention was ratified by the Australian Government on 7 December 2005 and entered into force for Australia on 6 January 2006.
[71] See Ibid, arts 15–22.See also United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations Guide on Anti-Corruption Policies (2003), 28–34.
[72] See United Nations Convention against Corruption, 9 December 2003, [2006] ATS 2, (entered into force generally on 14 December 2005), arts 6, 36.
[73] Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth) ss 5(1) (definition of 'law enforcement agency'), 7, 15. No additional Australian Government agencies have yet been prescribed as law enforcement agencies under the Act.
[74] Ibid s 15.
[75] Ibid ss 99, 108; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 15J, 15XB; Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) pts 2–4; Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth) ss 39, 110.
[76] Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth) pt 9.
[77] Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s 7(1)(a)(iiia).
[78] Ibid s 7(1)(ga).
[79] Ibid s 6(1).
[80] Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (Cth) s 203.
[81] Ibid pt 13 div 5.
[82] Ibid s 207.
[84] Ibid s 203(1).
[90] Ibid s 223A.
[91] Ibid pt 14.
[93] Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) s 5.
[94] Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 15UB; Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth) s 55; Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth) ss 83, 152.
[95] The exemption also applies to the inspectors and staff of both the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police Integrity Commission: Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) s 27.
[96]Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic) s 3 (definition of 'law enforcement agency'), 13.
[97] Queensland Government, Information Standard 42—Information Privacy (2001), [1.2.1], [7] (definition of 'law enforcement agency'). The Standard also does not cover certain personal information that may be handled by the Crime and Misconduct Commission, including personal information: (a) arising out of or in connection with certain controlled and covert operations and activities of the Crime and Misconduct Commission; (b) arising out of a warrant issued under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 (Cth); (c) about a witness who is included in a witness protection program or subject to certain witness protection arrangements; (d) arising out of a complaint made under pt 7 of the Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld); and (e) contained in a public interest disclosure within the meaning of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 (Qld), or that has been collected during an investigation arising out of a public interest disclosure: Queensland Government, Information Standard 42—Information Privacy (2001), [1.2.2].
[98] Information Privacy Bill 2007 (WA) sch 2.
[99] Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Submission PR 215, 28 February 2007.
[100] Australian Law Reform Commission, Review of Australian Privacy Law, DP 72 (2007), Proposal 34–3.
[101] Ibid, Proposal 34–4.
[102] Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission PR 553, 2 January 2008; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission PR 548, 26 December 2007; Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Submission PR 499, 20 December 2007; P Youngman, Submission PR 394, 7 December 2007.
[103] Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre UNSW, Submission PR 487, 19 December 2007.
[104] Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Submission PR 449, 11 December 2007.
[110] The ACLEI advised that it has commenced discussion with the OPC on the development of appropriate guidelines, and that the Integrity Commissioner intended to refer monitoring of the guidelines to the ACLEI's Internal Audit Committee: Ibid.
[111] Australian Privacy Foundation, Submission PR 553, 2 January 2008; Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Submission PR 548, 26 December 2007; Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Submission PR 499, 20 December 2007; Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Submission PR 449, 11 December 2007. The National Archives of Australia submitted that it should be included in any discussions in the development of information-handling guidelines that apply to the Integrity Commissioner: National Archives of Australia, Submission PR 414, 7 December 2007.


text:
Righting a wrong 66 years in the making
Willie Alvin Cousin served in the U.S. Army's 31st Infantry Division during the Korean War and injured his back and legs on active duty. He spent 30 days in the hospital at Fort Sheridan in Illinois and later was instructed to file for benefits after being discharged from the military.
That began what turned out to be a 66-year battle with the U.S. government that never ended in Cousin's favor – until he connected with The American Legion.
In late September, Cousin was awarded a 40-percent Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating retroactive to 1953. It ended decades of getting a "no" every time he filed his claim, and came after the 90-year-old Legionnaire teamed up with American Legion Department of Connecticut Service Officer K. Robert Lewis starting in 2011.
Cousin had previously used another veterans service organization and then a veterans agency to help with his claim, to no avail. The veteran said that before he met Lewis, "Honestly, I thought 'why do this?' I'd get the same thing over and over again. I met (Lewis) and (he) convinced me it was worthwhile."
Lewis set out on finding the necessary evidence and did so the old-fashioned way.
"Back at that time, veterans' claim files were actually paper folders. Mr. Cousin had a pretty healthy file," Lewis said. "When he came with us and I decided to take a look at the file, lo and behold, the very first documents were there from 1953 was the medical evidence of him getting hurt – and, a permanent profile in his personnel file through the end of his active duty and directions to file a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs. And they subsequently turned him down, saying there was no evidence."
In order to reopen the claim, Lewis needed what he called "new and material evidence – evidence that of and by itself changes the outcome. So I pulled the necessary documents from his folder, copied them, submitted them as new and material evidence, and they reopened the claim and said, 'Oh yes, this makes sense.'"
Once the claim was granted in 2017 to give Cousin a 40-percent disability rating, Lewis moved to do "what was right" and make the claim retroactive to 1953. Originally, the claim was only granted retroactive two years.
Cousin's appeal was denied at the Regional Office level, and then at both the Board of Veterans Appeals and Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. But in August of 2018, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit level – and with representation from attorney Andrew Dufresne of the law firm Perkins Coie – Cousins was victorious. And on Sept. 20 of this year, Cousin was notified that his claim was now retroactive to 1953.
"If it hadn't been for Mr. Lewis, I would have never stuck by (this) that long," said Cousin, a member of McKinney-King Post 142 in Hartford, Conn. "But (Lewis) gave me encouragement. I was about to give up when I met (him). I wouldn't have known where to go."
Hearing that "is very positive for me as a service officer," Lewis said. "What we do, and I've long said this, is we get to make people's lives better every day just by doing our job. This claim has been active for longer than I have been alive. The fact that we were able to help (Cousin), in my opinion, right a wrong, that was 64 years in the making, that just makes me feel good. That's what we're supposed to do."
Finding out his claim had been approved from his initial date of filing was a shock to Cousin – and his family. "My wife, she just screamed," he said. "It had finally come through. My wife stuck with me. The family, the kids, they stuck with me. (The Legion) stuck with me. It's really a thrill to know that you have people that care. (Lewis) stuck with me."
Cousin's situation will stay with Lewis well into the future. "Every once in a while you take on a case that's kind of vindication," he said. "This is why we do what we do. That's what The American Legion has been about.
"I fully believe in doing the right thing for all the right reasons, and Mr. Cousin's case was absolutely the right thing."
Tags:Veterans Benefits Center
Special offers and updates delivered directly to your e-mail inbox.
By answering a few simple questions, we are able to help you determine your eligibility for hundreds of available benefits.
Accredited American Legion service officers are specially trained to provide expert assistance, free of charge, to veterans and their families.
Veterans Benefits Center
Veteran Discounts
Get Help With Claims
State Benefits
American Legion service officers
VA Undersecretary addresses 2017 American Legion National Convention
VA Secretary addresses 2017 American Legion National Convention

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
oceanic.qc.ca
Olivier Fortier
Ancienne-Lorette Quebec
Currently Playing In:
Eligible for draft:
Drafted:
3rd round (65th overall), 2007
<<<<<<< Updated upstream
>>>>>>> Stashed changes
Prospect Talent Score
About Prospect Talent Score and Probability of Success»
Probability of Success
2006-07: This marked the centers second season with Rimouski (QMJHL), a 69 game campaign that finished with 28 goals and 64 points. He also appeared in six games for the Canadian National U18 squad, where he registered an assist.
2007-08: In 67 games with Oceanic (QMJHL), Fortier tallied 46 points (23g+23a), while racking up a career-high 37 penalty minutes. He won the QMJHL's Best Defensive Forward this season.
2008-09: The Rimouski Oceanic (QMJHL) staple returned for another season, netting eight goals and 35 points in just 29 games. Expect to see him with Hamilton (AHL) next season. Signed three-year deal with the Canadiens in March of 2009.
2009-10: Fortier suffered a shoulder injury in September and missed all but one regular season game in his first pro season with Hamilton (AHL). After making his debut with the Bulldogs in April, he appeared in 10 of 19 AHL playoff games for the Bulldogs – scoring his first pro goal, a game-winner, in Game 3 of the Bulldogs' second round series against Abbotsford. The goal was his only point and he finished the playoffs with a +1 plus/minus.
2010-11: Fortier appeared in 68 games, missing time mid-season with an upper body injury, in his first full season with Hamilton (AHL). He was a solid two-way forward for the Bulldogs, playing in all situations, and scored 9 goals with 11 assists and was +1 with 20 PMs. Fortier scored a goal in the Bulldogs first playoff game against Oklahoma City but was later injured in that game on a hit from behind by former Canadiens prospect Greg Stewart and did not play any other games. Hamilton advanced to the AHL semifinals.
More News & Features


How Will the Governor Propose to Close the Gap?
Gimmicks and One-Shots: In recent years the Governor has shifted costs out of State operating funds or across fiscal years to reduce reported growth. The state has also utilized one-time revenues to fill budget gaps. As the deficit grows, will a combination of spending shifts and one-shot revenues be used to close the gap?
Property Tax Relief Rebates: Property Tax Relief rebates will cost approximately $1.2 billion in state fiscal year 2019. They were originally adopted in 2015 when surpluses were expected to exceed $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2019. These rebates provide homeowners with a check equal to a share of their School Tax Relief (STAR) savings, with lower-income homeowners receiving a larger benefit. Will the Governor recognize the time has come to end this poor use of state funds?
Middle Income Tax Cuts: Income tax cuts are projected to reduce State revenues by $236 million in fiscal year 2018 and $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2019. These tax cuts were adopted as part of the fiscal year 2017 budget which forecasted a $98 million surplus in fiscal year 2019. Will these tax cuts be delayed?
Agency Spending: Will the Governor propose a spending plan that adheres to the 2 percent growth cap? What combination of spending cuts and new revenues will be proposed? Will the Governor partner with organized labor to achieve savings during difficult financial times?
How Have Major Items from the 2018 Adopted Budget Fared?
Excelsior Scholarships: Touted as a revolutionary expansion of access to higher education, the scholarships were estimated to cost $71 million in fiscal year 2018 and increase to $133 million in fiscal year 2019. Will the estimates hold?
Agency Savings: As part of the 2018 Adopted Budget, executive agencies were tasked with compiling plans to save $500 million annually. Will the Fiscal Year 2019 Executive Budget reflect any of these proposals and how will agency operations be impacted?
Funding Postemployment Benefits: In the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget, the State created a Postemployment Benefit Trust Fund. Will the Governor propose deposits to this fund in order to decrease the state's long-term liabilities?
How Will the Executive Respond to Federal Changes?
Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH): Cuts of $411 million to DSH are forecasted. How will the Executive Budget deal with the loss of funds? Will the DSH cut be primarily absorbed by NYC Health + Hospitals, spread throughout the state, made up with other state funds, or trigger a needed overhaul of supplemental payments?
Children's Health Plus (CHP): Absent a federal reauthorization of Children's Health Plus, another $1.1 billion is at risk in fiscal year 2019. Will the State absorb the full cost for 350,000 children covered by this health insurance?
Essential Plan: Approximately $4 billion in federal funding remains uncommitted for the State's Essential Plan, which provides health insurance to low-income New Yorkers who are not eligible for Medicaid. If the Essential Plan is not federally funded, will State government try to absorb the full costs of the program or restrict coverage to only legally mandated enrollees at a cost of approximately $1 billion annually?
Expand Executive Powers: Will the Governor seek to extend his power to impose cuts if Medicaid revenues or other federal revenues decline by more than $850 million?
How Will The Executive Budget Address Other Budget Challenges?
Education Aid: The 2018 Budget increased total school aid by $1 billion, or 4.2 percent, and included some small improvements to the Foundation Aid Formula. Will Governor Cuomo propose substantive changes to the $17 billion Foundation Aid formula to direct limited resources to the highest needs districts, or leave the formula basically unchanged like last year? Will other aid types be targeted for needed reform or repeal in order to keep spending growth in check?
Carbon Tax: In pursuit of the Governor's goals outlined in Reforming the Energy Vision, the Public Service Commission and New York Independent System Operator have been publicly discussing a carbon tax and promised a project plan in January 2018. Will a carbon tax be part of the Executive Budget? If so, will it apply only to electricity, and how will revenues be allocated?
Economic Development Reforms: Will Governor Cuomo propose economic development reforms, including an end to project specific appropriations, and create a "database of deals"?
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Funding: Governor Cuomo's FixNYC panel is set to release its findings regarding a congestion pricing plan. Will the plan make it into the Executive Budget and yield revenues in the coming fiscal year? If not, how will the State pay at least $161 million in annual costs for phase one of the Subway Action Plan? Will the State's capital plan include $4 billion for phase two of the Plan? What about the remaining $1 billion in capital that was promised in 2017 for the MTA's 2015-2019 capital program?
Financial Plan Hearing: The State legislature typically holds 13 hearings on the Executive Budget, receiving testimony and asking questions of agency heads and other interested parties. These hearings focus on individual subject areas, ranging from local government to State taxes. This year, the Legislature should add one more hearing pursuant to their constitutional and legal authority: to hear and inquire about the state budget overall. Legislative leaders should question the State Budget Director on the financial plan in its entirety, out-year deficits, economic assumptions, and any budgetary items that would not fall under the purview of the other legislative hearings.