Public Data And Privacy

Sydney Morning Herald

Friday January 17, 2003

The federal Privacy Commissioner will have public support for any reasonable move to regulate the commercial use of public records, such as the electoral roll. Research by the commissioner's office suggests that 70 per cent of consumers believe the electoral roll should not be available for marketing. That presumably reflects the common experience of people unhappy with the invasive conduct of some telemarketing and junk mailing.

It might seem a simple matter to apply agreed privacy principles, such as those enshrined in the Privacy Act in 2001, to telemarketing based on public records such as the electoral roll. The chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation, Tim Dixon, refers to the ``basic principle of privacy legislation [which] is that information gets used for the purpose for which it was collected". He points out that the electoral roll is required by law to be kept up to date. But it is hardly realistic to expect information in public records such as the electoral roll or the telephone directory should be used only ``for the purpose for which it was collected". Charities, for example, make extensive use of these public documents to contact the public directly, seeking donations. It is unreasonable to suggest they be prevented from doing this.

Other direct marketing, by businesses for profit, is another matter. Such users of telemarketing are already subject to regulation, such as the law which allows people who have made a contract over the phone to rescind it within a certain cooling-off period. Telemarketers are also required to respect the ``do not call, do not mail" list maintained by the Australian Direct Marketing Association. If direct marketing companies are now to be required to tell people where they got their details from such as from the electoral roll that is also reasonable. In general, though, it is burdensome and unnecessary to subject charities to the rules regulating for-profit telemarketers.

Privacy, from the earliest times of the smallest village communities, has always been an uncertain commodity. That others might know one's name and address is not the problem. What matters is the use they make of the information. Those who wish to avoid commercially aggressive intrusions into their lives can do that. They should continue to be able to do that. But blanket prohibitions on the use of public documents such as the electoral roll go too far and may damage the fund-raising efforts of charities.