1 Feb 2010, 09:00

The man who raised concerns in this case had been admitted to the No Asset Procedure ('the NAP') by the Official Assignee. As part of this process the man's creditors were notified that he had been admitted to the NAP, and were given a chance to object.

In this case the Ministry of Social Development ('the Ministry') was one of the man's creditors. After the Ministry was notified that the man had been admitted to the NAP, it provided personal information to the Official Assignee objecting to the man's entry to the NAP.

The man complained to our Office about the personal information that the Ministry had disclosed to the Official Assignee. This raised issues under principle 11 of the Privacy Act ('the Act').

Principle 11

Principle 11 sets out that an agency which holds personal information shall not disclose that information unless the agency believes, on reasonable grounds, that one of the exceptions to principle 11 applies.

The Ministry sought to rely on two exceptions relating to the maintenance of the law, and protecting public revenue.

Maintenance of the Law

Principle 11(e)(i) of the Act allows for disclosure of personal information where the agency believes, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure is necessary to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law.

In this case the Official Assignee is legally responsible for admitting and dismissing people from the NAP under the Insolvency Act 2006.

Under the Insolvency Act, there are certain circumstances in which the Official Assignee must not admit people to the NAP.

In this case, the Ministry provided information to the Official Assignee in order to help it establish whether the man should have been admitted to the NAP. As such, we were satisfied that the Ministry was entitled to rely on the exception set out under principle 11(e)(i) to disclose this information to the Official Assignee.

Protecting Public Revenue

Under principle 11(e)(iii) an agency may disclose personal information where the agency believes, on reasonable grounds, that the disclosure is necessary for the protection of public revenue.

In this case the man involved owed money to the Ministry, or in other words, owed a debt to the Crown. Once a person has been admitted to the NAP any debts they owe are unable to be recovered, and are ultimately cancelled 12 months after the person is admitted to the NAP.

The Ministry argued that if it had not objected, the debt the man owed to the Crown would have ultimately been cancelled. On this basis we were satisfied that the disclosure had been necessary in order to protect public revenue, and that the Ministry were also entitled to rely on the exception set out under principle 11(e)(iii).

As we were satisfied that the Ministry was entitled to disclose this information to the Official Assignee, we formed the opinion that principle 11 had not been breached in this case. The man was informed of our opinion and the file was closed.

June 2010

Disclosure of personal information - Ministry of Social Development - Official Assignee - No Asset Procedure - principles 11(e)(i) and 11(e)(iii)