Privacy and Confidentiality Breaches in Australian Human Services
This paper examines the distinction between confidentiality and privacy within Australian human services practice, using two case studies to illustrate the consequences of breaching these principles. The first case involves Sara, whose insurer sought unrelated medical records during a motor accident compensation claim, and the second involves Shannon, whose counsellor disclosed sensitive personal information to unauthorized third parties. The paper also outlines circumstances under which breaches may be permissible, strategies organizations can adopt to prevent unauthorized disclosures, and the protections afforded to clients under Australian law, including the Privacy Act 1988 and relevant New South Wales legislation.
- Introduction: Confidentiality and Privacy in Human Services: Defines privacy versus confidentiality in Australian human services
- Case Studies: Sara and Shannon: Two cases illustrating confidentiality and privacy breaches
- Permissible Breaches of Confidentiality or Privacy: Circumstances where breaching privacy is legally permitted
- Protection from Unwanted and Unwarranted Breaches: Organizational strategies to prevent unauthorized disclosures
- Australian Law and Client Protections: Legal frameworks and remedies under Australian privacy law
- Conclusion: Summary of ethical obligations in human service practice
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses two concrete case studies (Sara and Shannon) to ground abstract legal and ethical principles in real-world scenarios, making the analysis accessible and applied.
- Moves logically from case analysis to permissible exceptions, then to preventive strategies and legal frameworks, creating a coherent policy-oriented argument.
- Draws on multiple authoritative Australian sources — the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the ALRC, NSWLRC, and the Privacy Act 1988 — lending credibility to its claims.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied legal analysis: it identifies a principle (confidentiality and privacy), illustrates its violation through case examples, then systematically maps those violations onto statutory and regulatory frameworks. This technique — moving from fact pattern to legal norm — is characteristic of applied ethics and policy writing in the human services field.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by introducing the conceptual distinction between confidentiality and privacy. It then analyzes the two cases in detail before addressing when breaches are legally permissible. A dedicated section outlines organizational prevention strategies, followed by a comprehensive overview of Australian legal protections, enforcement mechanisms, and remedies. The conclusion briefly ties the cases back to the broader ethical obligations of human service practitioners.
Introduction: Confidentiality and Privacy in Human Services
According to the Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner (2007), confidentiality is a major principle defining the relationship between human service workers and their clients. In the two cases discussed below, human services have privileged the notion of confidentiality over the more fundamental right of privacy. Commentators argue there is a persistent confusion between these two concepts, and that privacy is an important but neglected ethical concept within human services. Both cases serve as examples of breaches of confidentiality and privacy and their implications.
Case Studies: Sara and Shannon
Following her accident, Sara was entitled to compensation from her insurer in accordance with the New South Wales road accident compensation scheme. In New South Wales, people who suffer personal injuries as a result of road accidents can claim compensation under the New South Wales Motor Accidents Scheme, which is administered by the Motor Accidents Authority. Motor accident compensation claims are dealt with in accordance with the Motor Accidents Act 1988 and the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (The Motor Accidents Authority, 2012).
Sara's insurance company, which was required to compensate her, did not accept the medical evidence provided by her doctor and requested further information, which Sara considered an infringement of her privacy. When she signed the compensation claim form, the insurance company was authorized to obtain information relevant to that claim. However, after delaying her compensation, the insurer sought information from her doctor that was unrelated to the accident. Specifically, the insurance company requested her full clinical notes — a breach of the doctor's professional ethics and the doctor–patient relationship.
The insurer's attempt to obtain her complete medical records constituted a breach of confidentiality and privacy between doctor and patient. Sara recognized that it was irrelevant to access confidential notes pertaining to an unrelated sexual assault in the context of a motor vehicle accident insurance claim. She further feared that the insurance company's access to her full health history, and the potential use of that information, amounted to a breach of the Privacy Act.
The second case, involving Shannon, is similarly concerning. Shannon confided in a counsellor who subsequently shared her confidential information with Shannon's family members, housemates, and other unrelated persons. This was a gross breach of healthcare providers' professional ethics. Shannon had shared her own personal issues with the counsellor, as well as sensitive information relating to her family's health.
The intimate information that Shannon did not wish to be disclosed was conveyed to third parties against her explicit wishes. The conflict within Shannon's family worsened following the disclosure, family relationships broke down, and Shannon's trust in counsellors and other professionals was immediately and severely undermined.
The details of Shannon's discussions with the counsellor were made known to her family, which caused her significant trauma. She regarded this as a breach of both confidentiality and privacy on the part of her counsellor. Shannon and her lawyer criticized the counsellor's decision as a violation of the strict and comprehensive code of ethics, which prohibits the conveying of confidential information to unauthorized persons — a gross breach of Shannon's confidentiality that caused her unnecessary harm (Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 2008).
The counsellor in Shannon's case did not follow professional ethics, which require that personal information not leave the premises unless necessary. The counsellor should have notified Shannon of the breach that had made her personal information vulnerable and should have taken steps, in accordance with the company's obligations under the Privacy Act, to safeguard personal information (Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 2005).
Both cases represent major breaches of the professional code of conduct regarding client confidentiality and privacy. Both Shannon and Sara clearly recognized the extent to which these breaches could harm them. The counsellor in Shannon's case was obliged to protect her right to information privacy, just as the disclosure of Sara's sexual health history — as demanded by her insurer — constituted a breach of her privacy and confidentiality (Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 2001).
Permissible Breaches of Confidentiality or Privacy
Breaching confidentiality with consent typically involves the disclosure of personal information to another party when the person concerned has openly agreed to provide that information on the understanding it may later be shared with others. Consent is considered the normal and expected means by which personal information is conveyed to third parties. Appropriate consent requires a clear understanding of the circumstances and the context in which information may be passed on. Disclosure to relevant authorities with the consent of the person concerned is of course the most preferred option, as it does not require overriding the individual's privacy interests and avoids invoking the public interest argument. Additionally, the law does not recognize the practical value of a consented release as unlimited; in the event that consent is granted, the person concerned may subsequently withdraw it, further limiting its scope.
A person's confidentiality is not absolute. Where a persuasive public interest exists, it may be overridden, provided due consideration is given and the public interest demonstrably outweighs the privacy interest. Each case must be considered on its own merits. For instance, staff within the same organization must submit information about the privacy matter in question to the Director-General for approval and consideration, as required by sections 62KA and 62Q of the Australian Privacy Act.
In the provision of medical services where doctors need to know a patient's health status for treatment purposes — particularly when the patient is unconscious — disclosure may be justified. Special emphasis is placed on sensitive health matters such as genetic information, which should generally only be shared among family members (Wertz & Fletcher, 1989). Furthermore, practitioners must familiarize themselves with the National Privacy Principles and consult the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for clarification on how those principles apply to specific issues arising in the workplace.
A patient's privacy right may also be overridden in cases where a medical doctor is aware of a patient's HIV-positive status and a healthcare worker has been exposed in circumstances presenting a real risk of transmission. Similarly, privacy may be breached when there are reasonable grounds to believe that such a breach is necessary to prevent an imminent threat to the life or health of the person concerned or another person.
Conclusion
The two cases of Sara and Shannon represent serious breaches of the professional code of conduct regarding client confidentiality and privacy. Both recognized the extent to which the breaches could harm them. The counsellor in Shannon's case was obligated to protect her right to privacy, and the demand by Sara's insurer for her full sexual health history equally constituted a breach of her privacy and confidentiality (Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner, 2001). Human service practitioners must understand both the ethical and legal dimensions of confidentiality in order to fulfill their duty of care to clients and to comply with Australian privacy law.
References
Australia. Human Rights Commission. (1983). Review of Crimes Act 1914 and other crimes legislation of the Commonwealth. Australian Government Publication Service.
Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner. (2001, November). Privacy in the private health sector. Retrieved from http://www.privacy.gov.au
Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner. (2005, March). Review issues paper. Retrieved from http://www.privacy.gov.au
Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner. (2006). Information sheet (private sector) 1A: National Privacy Principles. Retrieved from http://www.privacy.gov.au
Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner. (2006, August). Report of the Privacy Commissioner's review of the privacy guidelines for the handling of Medicare and PBS claims information. Retrieved from http://www.privacy.gov.au
Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner. (2007). 2006–07 annual report of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Retrieved from http://www.privacy.gov.au
Australian Government Office of the Privacy Commissioner. (2008). M v Commonwealth Agency [2008] PrivCmrA 13. Retrieved from http://www.privacy.gov.au
Australian Law Reform Commission. (2007). Protecting a right to personal privacy. Retrieved from http://www.alrc.gov.au
New South Wales Law Reform Commission. (2007). Invasion of privacy. New South Wales.
Office of the Attorney General. (2012, March). Privacy Act 1988. Retrieved from http://www.comlaw.gov.au
The Motor Accidents Authority. (2012, February). Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. Retrieved from
Wertz, D. C., & Fletcher, J. C. (1989). Ethics and human genetics: A cross-cultural perspective. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.