1 Feb 2002, 09:00

A woman supplied a temporary protection order to the Electoral Enrolment Centre (the EEC) to support her claim to be on the unpublished electoral roll because of concern about her safety. A man, who was listed as the 'respondent' on the order, noticed that she was not listed on the electoral roll. He wrote to the EEC suggesting that the woman should not be on the unpublished roll as the protection order was no longer current. The EEC wrote to the woman about the matter. She supplied new material to the EEC in order to remain on the unpublished roll.

The man then requested access under principle 6 to the information used by the woman to support her claim to remain on the unpublished roll.

The EEC refused the request on the basis of section 29(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1993, that disclosure of the information would be an unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual.

The man asked me to investigate as he considered the actions of the EEC amounted to an interference with his privacy. I formed the view that the EEC was justified in withholding most of the requested information.

Section 2

The EEC sent me a copy of the information supplied by the woman. I considered whether this was 'personal information' about the man (Privacy Act 1993, section 2). I concluded that some of it was not personal information about him and therefore that he could not access that particular information under the Privacy Act.

Section 29(1)(a)

Some of the information was personal information about both the man and the woman. Where there is 'mixed' information, a balance must be struck between the requester's right of access to personal information against the other person's interest in protecting his or her privacy.

Section 29(1)(a) requires an agency to satisfy two criteria in order to refuse access:

- that the disclosure of the information would disclose the 'affairs' of another person; and
- that such a disclosure would be 'unwarranted' in the circumstances.

The meaning and scope of 'affairs' has been held by the Complaints Review Tribunal to refer to the 'ordinary pursuits of life, business dealings, public matters' (O and Others v N, CRT 19/94, decision no. 4/96). 'Affairs' generally requires a course of conduct on the part of the individual, although a single event or action which relates to a course of conduct by that individual might be construed as their 'affairs'. 'Unwarranted' has been understood in this context to mean 'unjustified' or 'without good and sufficient reason'. This requires a weighing of the parties' respective and competing interests in order to decide whether access (or refusing access) can be justified in the circumstances.

In my opinion the EEC had a proper basis for withholding some personal information under section 29(1)(a). I was satisfied that the disclosure of this information would be an unwarranted disclosure of the woman's affairs. The EEC's actions in withholding the information did not, therefore, amount to an interference with the man's privacy.

The man had prior knowledge of a small amount of factual information held by the EEC. I did not consider this met the criteria for withholding. I advised the EEC of my view and recommended it release this information to the man in summary form, which it did.

Indexing terms: Access to personal information - Public sector agency - Refusal - 'Unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual' - 'Mixed information' - Privacy Act 1993, ss 2 and 29(1)(a)

October 2002