The Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld) (IP Act) contains the privacy principles which set out the rules for how personal information is to be collected, managed, used and disclosed by Queensland government agencies.1
When an agency provides information to a complainant about the progress and outcome of their complaint, they must ensure they do so in compliance with the privacy principles. The amount and type of information that can be given to a complainant will often depend on whether they made a customer/administrative action complaint or a regulatory complaint. Both are discussed below under separate headings.
Complainants may not know, or may make assumptions about, what will happen and what they will be told after they make a complaint. Agencies could consider using the information in this guideline and their own legislation and policies to produce a pamphlet or information sheet which sets out:
Making it available on the agency's website and giving it to anyone who makes a complaint could go a long way towards ensuring complainants know what to expect from the outset.
Unmet expectations are a prime source of frustration and anger for complainants. Letting a complainant know at the beginning of the complaints process as to what the agency can/cannot do, what communication they can expect, who will be involved, the agency’s processes, timelines and possible outcomes can help to ensure a complainant’s expectations are reasonable and realistic.2
Personal information is any information about an individual who can be identified directly from the information, or whose identity can be reasonably ascertained by reference to other information.3 Complaint processes will generally involve the personal information of the complainant, the individual the subject of the complaint, and witnesses and other third parties, eg subject matter experts.
To determine if information is personal information the agency must decide if the information identifies an individual and if it about that individual.
Sometimes an individual’s identity is clear from the information itself, for example, the complainant provides an individual’s name, photograph, or an identifying description of the individual.4 However, even where the identity is not obvious from the information, an individual’s identity may still be ‘reasonably ascertainable’ through contextual information.
Complaints generally arise out of specific actions or events, which means the identity of the individuals involved, such as the complainant, witnesses or other third parties, can be readily worked out. For example, in a small agency or in a rural or regional area, information about the business unit, location of the employee the complaint is about, or even the subject matter of complaint, may be enough to identify an individual involved in the complaint.
Information is ‘about’ an individual where there is a sufficient link or connection between the information and the individual,5 or it reveals a fact or opinion about the individual.6 In almost all cases, complaint information will be about an individual.
Information does not need to be true to be personal information. This means unsubstantiated allegations or statements about an individual are still that individual’s personal information, as well as the personal information of the person who made the complaint.
An agency discloses personal information if:
In most cases, if an agency gives personal information to a complainant it will be a disclosure and the privacy principles have rules about disclosing personal information8. Agencies must ensure that, when updating complainants on the progress, or advising them of the outcome, of their complaint, that personal information is not disclosed in breach of the privacy principles.
Customer complaints—or, in the local government context, administrative action complaints—are complaints about the service or action/inactions of an agency or its employees by a person affected by the service or action.
These are not the same as a regulatory complaints, which are complaints about a breach of an Act the agency administers, eg a complaint about a child safety concern, suspected unlawful fishing, or an illegally parked vehicle.
In most cases, an agency should be able to update a complainant on the status and progress of their customer/administrative action complaint without involving the privacy principles.
Giving the complainant procedural or administrative information, such as how the agency deals with complaints, where the relevant complaint currently sits within that process, and the potential outcomes of the complaint process involves no personal information. Where there is no personal information, an agency does not need to consider the privacy principles.
An agency could provide information that demonstrates they are:
Sarah came into the counter area of a department to communicate her dissatisfaction with one of its services. The conversation between Sarah and the employee became animated and Sarah subsequently lodged a complaint about what she considered was the rude and offensive behaviour of the employee. A few weeks after lodging her complaint Sarah asks the department about the status of her complaint.
The department informs Sarah that her complaint is still under investigation and that this involves contacting a number of individuals who witnessed the exchange. The department informs Sarah that it expects to conclude its investigation within a fortnight and that it expects to make a decision on her complaint within a month. It also informs her that if her complaint against the employee is substantiated there is a range of consequences that can occur and provides detail on this range.
Liam complains to his local Council about a barking dog in his neighbourhood (a regulatory complaint). Council askes Liam to keep a diary of when the barking occurs and to return it after 14 days. Liam hears nothing further from Council and the dog barking continues.
Dissatisfied with what he considers to be Council’s inaction, Liam lodges a new complaint to Council about its failure to deal properly with his complaint about his neighbour’s barking dog (an administrative action complaint). Liam contacts Council the following week to find out the status of his complaint.
Council responds that it is reviewing whether the investigating officer complied with Council’s procedures for barking dog complaints. It informs him that these procedures include formally notifying the dog owner that Council has received a complaint about their dog’s barking and provides Liam with a copy of the fact sheet that it includes with its notification letters, which sets out possible causes of barking and potential solutions. Council also informs Liam that it will investigate whether a door-knock was undertaken in the neighbourhood and whether the officer visited the property to observe the dog.
Providing a complainant with a status update that includes personal information of third persons arising out of the administration of the complaint, such as the name or a detailed description of witnesses, or the location, date and time of interviews with witnesses, is a potential breach of the IP Act.
If the complainant knows which employee is dealing with their complaint, a status update will also give them information about that employee, ie the actions they have taken on the complaint. While this information is the personal information of that employee within the meaning of the IP Act, it is ‘routine personal work information’, because it wholly relates to the employee’s standard work duties and responsibilities. Disclosure of routine personal work information to a member of the public for a legitimate agency purpose will, in most circumstances, be a permitted disclosure under IPP 11(1)(a) or NPP 2(1)(a).9
An important component of an effective customer/administrative action complaints management process is demonstrating to the complainant that:
Depending on the complaint and its severity, a range of outcomes will be possible. Most complainants will want to know that the outcome of their complaint was in line with established policy. However, providing this information—eg whether the complaint was substantiated, the reasons for the decision, and the specific measure(s) taken because of the complaint—can reveal personal information about the individual the complaint was about.
Where an agency is dealing with a customer/administrative action complaint they will be able to give it to the complainant, even though it is personal information, as the legislative schemes that deal with these kinds of complaints generally provide for the complainants to be advised of their complaint's outcome.10
Compliance with a legislative authority that provides for the complainant to be notified about the outcome of their complaints means the notification, to the extent of the authorisation, is not a privacy breach.
These legislative authorisations only apply to giving information to the complainant. If a witness who was involved in a complaint process wanted to know the outcome of the complaint, an agency could not rely on one of these provisions to provide them with information.
In the absence of a legislative authority specifying what information is to be provided, agencies should strive to achieve a balance between compliance with their legislative obligations, communicating a transparent and accountable complaints process, and ensuring to the greatest practicable extent the privacy of individuals involved in the complaint—particularly the individual the complaint is about.
Good communication is a critical part of effective complaint handling. For example, issuing a detailed outcome letter that addresses:
can mean that a complainant is more likely to accept an outcome as fair and reasonable, even if it is not what they had hoped for.
Agency employees should be aware of their agency's policies, including the agency's complaint handling policies. If a complaint is made against an employee, they should know that the complainant will be given some information about the outcome of the complaint. However, they will not necessarily expect significant or detailed information be given to the complainant.
For example, the employee might expect the agency to tell complainant that the complaint was substantiated and that the agency took disciplinary action against the employee. However, they would not expect the agency to tell the complainant that the employee was subject to a monetary penalty or the amount of the penalty, or that the employee was dismissed from their employment or transferred to another identified business unit.
Even though it arose in or out of a work context, the disciplinary action taken against an employee is not routine personal work information and as such cannot be disclosed by relying on IPP 11(1)(a) or NPP 2(1)(a).
The department investigated Sarah’s complaint about one of its employee’s conduct by reviewing CCTV footage and interviewing other staff who witnessed the incident. The department determined that the complaint was substantiated and took disciplinary action against the employee.
It advised Sarah that the employee the subject of her complaint did not follow departmental policies and procedures. The department acknowledged the impact of the employee’s behaviour on Sarah and told her it took disciplinary action against the employee. The department again provided Sarah with the range of disciplinary actions that are appropriate in this type of complaint.
When dealing with a customer/administrative action complaint arising out of a regulatory complaint, it is important to bear in mind that the subject of the complaint shifts. The complaint becomes about the actions of the agency or agency employee, not the actions of the individual the regulatory complaint was about.
Council investigated Liam’s complaint about its handling of his (regulatory) complaint about his neighbour’s barking dog and advised him that the investigating officer acted in accordance with Council’s procedures. It also advised Liam that Council spoke with the dog owner about potential actions to address the barking.
Council provided Liam with the date that the investigating officer undertook a site visit, the number of neighbours who were door-knocked, and the number of written statements it received in response. It also provided Liam with information about permitted animal noise levels and explained how the evidence that Council collected fell within these levels. Council advised Liam that it would conduct a new investigation if it received further complaints and provided him with information about the penalties that it may issue if it was determined that the dog was causing an unreasonable barking nuisance.
It should also be noted that, in all but extremely rare cases, the complainant has no input or right of review about the actual outcome of their complaint. If, for example, the employee they complained about was given a monetary penalty of $1,000, the complainant has no right to argue that this was an insufficient amount.
The complaints process is also intended to bring a sense of closure to the incident that prompted the complaint.
Most agencies have responsibility for conducting investigations into breaches of the law, for example illegal dumping, tree clearing without a permit, or unlawful fishing. Often, the catalyst for these investigations is a complaint from a member of the public. These are called regulatory complaints.
In some circumstances, the complainant will want to know what the agency is doing about their complaint, how the investigation is proceeding, and/or the outcome of the complaint. Unlike customer/administrative action complaints, in most circumstances the complainant has not been directly affected by what they are complaining about.12
When considering whether to give information to the complainant, in addition to the privacy principles agencies will need to consider:
The type of regulatory complaint which is made can impact what information the agency can tell the complainant.
The approach used for customer/administrative action complaints can be used for these kinds of regulatory complaints. Refer to 'Communicating the status of a customer/administrative action complaint' above for details, but providing procedural or administrative information about how the agency investigates these kinds of alleged breaches of the law, the way the investigations generally progress and possible outcomes depending on the outcome of the investigation, can allow an agency to provide a complainant with information in a way that won’t involve disclosing personal information.
Providing some personal information to the employee the complaint is about will often be required as part of investigating some complaints. The rules of natural justice (also known as procedural fairness) require that the person the subject of the complaint be provided with enough information to enable them to understand and respond to the complaint made against them.
For example, someone who has had a complaint of workplace bullying or harassment made against them would generally not be able to provide a meaningful response to this claim unless the agency identified the alleged victim of their actions.
Where giving someone natural justice requires disclosing personal information, the disclosure will be authorised by law. Refer to Natural justice, disclosure, and privacy for more information.
Current as at: February 13, 2024