Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

Confidentiality provisions within the legislation and by departmental policy make it virtuallyimpossible to access another persons file without their express written permission. This becomesdifficult where that person may have died and cannot give that permission. And yet that file mayprovide the information that is the missing link to that persons history (Aboriginal Legal RightsMovement submission 484 pages 46-47).Respect for individual privacy means that information about third parties will not bedivulged without their consent or, where deceased, consent from their next of kin. Thismay appear unjust.In order to get records I have to prove Dad is dead and that I am his daughter. It is unjustthat I have to get paperwork that I am related in order to get the records.Confidential evidence 183, South Australia.Yet the importance of protecting privacy was stressed to the Inquiry.[It] has been raised with me by a number of elderly Aboriginal members of the community thatthey do not want their families to access records that may have been produced by the Protector ofAborigines or the Aborigines Protection Board that relate to their family histories without themgiving express permission … (Dr David Rathman, SA Department of Aboriginal Affairs,evidence).When one considers the kind of information recorded about people by protectionboards and other agencies, the reluctance of some parents to have their children see it isunderstandable. A mother may not wish her children to know that she was raped by anemployer for example. A father may wish to keep private the fact that his application foran exemption certificate was rejected on the grounds that his standard of living or‘intelligence’ was judged inadequate.In view of these concerns two issues arise. The first is whether a distinction can bemade between, on the one hand, third party identifying information which permits asearcher to identify his or her own family and community links and, on the other,information which is solely personal to the third party. The second issue is whether therecord agency should seek the third party’s consent or whether that should be left to thesearcher to pursue.Some States interpret the right of privacy more strictly than others and agencies varywithin States. In Queensland information about the immediate family of the searcher willbe divulged but ‘sensitive’ information about third parties will be deleted (QueenslandGovernment interim submission page 68). In WA, on the other hand, the welfaredepartment will not even advise a searcher of his or her parents’ identity.Under Western Australian law, if people wish to pursue personal information that has beenwithheld, they may obtain the consent from the third party if they know the identity of the thirdparty. Departments are obliged under the [FoI] Act not to reveal the identity of the third party.However it is usual practice [for the department] to contact the third party to seek their views(personal communication from Director-General, WA Family and Children’s Services).