it would require redaction of... almost all the document, except to the extent that the document includes the complainant's name, on the basis that the redacted parts of the document do not contain personal information about the complainant.

1. The approach taken by ANZ, as reflected in the letter dated 28 February 2022, was to describe and give the date of the document which contained personal information of the Applicant. Instead of providing a redacted document, ANZ provided an extract of the personal information in Schedule 3 to the 28 February 2022 letter.[13] ANZ explained that Schedule 3 sets out the personal information about the Applicant that is held by ANZ in documents that primarily relate to the FOS systemic issues investigation. The extracts in Schedule 3 included references to the Applicant's FOS case number, his name and sentences in which the Applicant was named. I note that the personal information in the extracts is consistent with the common examples of personal information given in the APP Guidelines at B.89 namely:

an individual's name, signature, address, telephone number, date of birth, medical records, bank account details, employment details and commentary or opinion about a person.

1. In addition to the extracts provided in Schedule 3 of the 28 February 2022 letter, ANZ provided in Schedule 1 a copy of complete documents, being communications between it and FOS and internal file notes. Further, in Schedule 2, ANZ provided a copy of documents redacted for legal professional privilege.
2. It is apparent from the schedules to the 28 February 2022 letter that ANZ has provided to the Applicant some complete documents and some partially redacted documents. In addition, where there is personal information in a document limited to a name, file number or short phrase, ANZ has extracted this personal information and provided it to the Applicant. The systemic issues documents were voluminous and the personal information contained therein was relatively minor and therefore I consider that it was not reasonable and practicable for ANZ to provide those documents in a redacted form. There is no utility in the Applicant being provided with a large amount of blank paper. Further, I consider that it was reasonable in the circumstances, for the purposes of APP 12.5(b), for ANZ to provide extracts of the personal information because that was a way to meet the needs of both the ANZ and the Applicant. It met the needs of ANZ because it was able to avoid the cost and impracticability of redacting voluminous pages of documents and it met the needs of the Applicant because he was provided with access to the personal information to which he was entitled under the APP.
3. ANZ contends that there is no basis for release of further information to the Applicant. The issue for the Tribunal is whether there is any personal information held by ANZ to which the Applicant has not been given access. The Commissioner in the Decision under review decided that ANZ had sufficiently provided access to the Applicant's personal information from the systemic issues documents by giving the Applicant extracts from those documents in the letter dated 28 February 2022.[14]
4. ANZ says that the Applicant's second request relates to personal information from two separate procedures. First is the Applicant's FOS dispute. Second is the FOS systemic issues investigation. In a letter[15] dated 20 February 2019 from the Australian Financial Complaints Authority which succeeded FOS, there is the following explanation with respect to a systemic issue investigation:

A systemic issue investigation happens independently of any individual case. That is, if it is identified that an issue affecting a particular customer may also affect other customers, we will investigate with the financial firm involved whether or not other customers have been affected, and if so, take steps to ensure the issue is rectified. ...

The individual customers that have raised their concerns with us are not kept informed of the progress of the broader systemic issue investigation.

1. FOS began its systemic issues investigation in about December 2012 and ceased consideration of the Applicant's FOS dispute in October 2013 after having suspended it from February 2013. This is important because the focus of the investigation turned from the individual to a class of persons potentially affected by a systemic issue.
2. The Applicant contends that given the systemic issue investigation was commenced because of the Applicant's own complaint, any information that describes personal circumstances of members of the class will be reasonably identifiable as personal information of the Applicant. I reject that contention because the information being considered relates to whether there is a systemic issue rather than whether an individual has a valid complaint. In other words, the information contained within the systemic issues documents is not 'about' the Applicant for the purposes of the definition of personal information.
3. Personal information has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act which relevantly provides that personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual or an individual who is reasonably identifiable.
4. The Full Court of the Federal Court in Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation[16] said that the concept of personal information is very broad but that it was constrained by the requirements that:

(ii) it must be "about" the individual who requested access; and

(iii) it must be about an individual whose identity is apparent, or can reasonably be ascertained, from the information or opinion.

1. It follows that if the information in the systemic issues documents is not about the Applicant, then it will not be personal information. Further guidance is provided by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation[17] who said that the words "about an individual" direct attention to the need for the individual to be a subject matter of the information or opinion. It is clear from the description of the systemic issues investigation that the Applicant is not the subject matter of the information. That is not to say that the information in the FOS systemic issues investigation does not relate to the Applicant or does not have a connection with him, but it is not "about" him.[18]
2. The Applicant drew my attention to some specific documents from which extracts were provided but which the Applicant claimed should have been fully disclosed because he considered that the whole of the document was personal information. The Applicant was able to make this argument because the FOS had provided him with a full copy of some of the documents in issue.
3. The first document is the FOS letter to ANZ dated 14 December 2012,[19] the extracts from which were provided to the Applicant in Schedule 3 to the ANZ's letter dated 28 February 2022.[20] The subject of the letter is "Possible Systemic Issue". Where there is reference to FOS's investigation of the Applicant's complaints regarding the ANZ (defined herein as the Applicant's FOS dispute), those references have been extracted from the letter as personal information of the Applicant. Contrary to the contention of the Applicant, I consider that this is an example of ANZ correctly identifying personal information held by it and providing access to the Applicant.[21] The balance of the letter not extracted[22] was not personal information of the Applicant because it was general information about a systemic issues investigation.
4. The second document is the FOS letter to David Robertson dated 5 February 2013,[23] the extracts from which were provided to the Applicant in Schedule 3 to the ANZ's letter dated 28 February 2022.[24] Similar to the first document,[25] there are significant passages of information which are not about the Applicant.
5. The third document is a letter from FOS to ANZ dated 11 December 2013,[26] the extracts from which were provided to the Applicant in Schedule 3 to the ANZ's letter dated 28 February 2022.[27] The subject of the letter is "Definite systemic issue" but the references to FOS's investigation of the Applicant's complaints regarding the ANZ (defined herein as the Applicant's FOS dispute) have been extracted from the letter as personal information of the Applicant. Contrary to the contention of the Applicant, I consider that this is an example of ANZ correctly identifying personal information held by it and providing access to the Applicant. The balance of the letter not extracted was not personal information of the Applicant because it was general information about a systemic issues investigation.
6. The Applicant gave further examples of documents in annexure JBS-15 to the Applicant's amended statement of facts, issues and contentions. The Applicant objected to only being provided with extracts of personal information as opposed to the whole document. In my view the Applicant's objection is not supported by APP 12 and the definition of personal information. ANZ has correctly identified from the information held by it the information that is about the Applicant whose identity is apparent from that information. The balance of the information (not extracted) is not personal information because it is not about the Applicant and the Applicant cannot be identified from the balance of the information.
7. The Applicant referred to the above documents as examples of ANZ failing to provide appropriate access to his personal information and, further, as a reason for the Tribunal inspecting all of the relevant documents including the systemic issues documents. The Applicant also claimed that ANZ made misrepresentations with respect to contents of the personal information held by it. Given my findings that ANZ adopted the appropriate approach to identifying personal information, I reject the claims of misrepresentations and I do not consider there is any need for the Tribunal to carry out an inspection. In my view there is nothing to suggest that there is personal information requested by the Applicant to which he has not been given access.
8. Whilst I am satisfied that the ANZ provided adequate access to the Applicant's personal information, it remains the case that ANZ failed to provide access to the Applicant within a reasonable period following receipt of the access request. This was a finding made in the Decision[28] which is not contested by ANZ. It follows that there was a breach by ANZ of the APP and therefore an interference with the privacy of an individual pursuant to s 13(1) of the Privacy Act. The Applicant contends that this was a serious interference with privacy and that a civil penalty should be imposed under s 13G of the Privacy Act.
9. It was noted in the Decision[29] under review that ANZ had failed to provide access to the Applicant within a reasonable period following receipt of the access request. However, since the Decision was made, ANZ has provided access to the Applicant in accordance with the Decision. Further, I have found that other breaches of the APP alleged by the Applicant on the review application have not been established. The phrase 'serious interference with privacy' is not defined in the Privacy Act but it would involve a failure to take privacy obligations seriously or a blatant disregard of privacy obligations. No such findings can be made against ANZ. I have considered the factors in s 13G(1B) of the Privacy Act that may be taken into account in determining if the interference with privacy is serious and none of them suggest that the interference was serious. Viewed objectively, the personal information was not of a sensitive nature and the breaches of the APP found by the Commissioner in the Decision did not have significant adverse consequences to the Applicant. Much of the personal information held by ANZ was contained in documents[30] which had been previously provided to the Applicant by FOS.[31] Whilst the Applicant was entitled to this information from ANZ, it can hardly be said that ANZ's failure to provide it caused the Applicant any real detriment given that he was already in possession of it and he was aware of most of the personal information held by ANZ.

1. Finally, I reject the Applicant's request for costs or reimbursement of expenses as claimed under various subsections of s 52 of the Privacy Act. The Applicant has not identified the particulars or the quantum of the expenses incurred. In any event, given my findings to the effect that appropriate disclosure of personal information has been made, I would not exercise my discretion to declare that the Applicant is entitled to any reimbursement.

1. The Applicant has not been successful. The Tribunal affirms the Decision under review.

1. I certify that these 55 (fifty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P Britten-Jones.

.......................[SGD]....................................

[3] [1999] HCA 66; (1999) 201 CLR 1 at 13.

[4] (2008) 234 CLR 275.

[5] Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (2008) 234 CLR 275 at 297.

[6] Belinda Thompson statutory declaration 18 February 2022 at T68.

[7] See Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (2008) 234 CLR 275 at 293.

[8] Osland v Secretary, Department of Justice (2008) 234 CLR 275 at 298

[9] Ampolex Ltd v Perpetual Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd (1996) 40 NSWLR 12 at 23 - 24. See also Rich v Harrington [2007] FCA 1987; (2007) 245 ALR 106 at [31]

[10] See [59] of the Decision where the same definition is adopted.

[11] See the definition of personal information in s 6 of the Privacy Act.

[12] TB1 page 570 of schedule 1 of the letter from ANZ dated 26 February 2021.

[14] The Decision at [59] - [60] and [71] - [80]. The letter dated 28 February 2022 and attached schedules of documents is TB1 at pages 837 - 846.

[16] [2017] FCAFC 4; (2017) 249 FCR 24 at [60].

[17] [2017] FCAFC 4; (2017) 249 FCR 24 at [60]

[18] Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation [2017] FCAFC 4; (2017) 249 FCR 24 at [64].

[19] TB2 page 1181 - 1183 (part of ST4)

[21] I note that by letter dated 5 October 2022 at item 1 of schedule 1 (TB1 page 919 T86) ANZ accepted there was further personal information

[22] Subject to ANZ's acceptance of further personal information in its letter dated 5 October 2022

[25] Subject to ANZ's acceptance of further personal information in its letter dated 5 October 2022

[30] For example, the three letters from FOS referred to earlier in these reasons.

[31] On 5 June 2018, FOS released to the Applicant a complete copy of their dispute files - Decision at [112].