Big data, privacy, and administrative law challenges
📌 Overview: Big Data, Privacy, and Administrative Law
📊 What is Big Data?
Big Data refers to the large-scale collection, analysis, and use of information, often gathered through digital platforms, sensors, surveillance, and automated systems. Governments and administrative agencies increasingly rely on such data for:
Predictive analytics (e.g. risk profiling)
Automated decision-making
Surveillance and compliance
Public policy modelling (e.g. welfare fraud, border control)
🔒 What is Privacy?
Privacy involves the right to control personal information. In Australia, it is protected by:
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Australian Privacy Principles (APPs)
State-based privacy laws
Implied constitutional freedoms
Common law principles of procedural fairness
⚖️ How Does Administrative Law Come In?
Administrative law governs how government agencies use data to make decisions. Key concerns include:
Procedural fairness: Were people given a chance to respond?
Legality: Was the data used lawfully?
Bias and discrimination: Did automated systems cause unfair outcomes?
Transparency: Were the data sources and logic explained?
Accountability: Can decisions be reviewed or challenged?
🔍 Key Legal Principles Involved
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Procedural Fairness | Individuals must be informed of, and allowed to respond to, adverse material |
| Legality | Agencies must act within statutory limits |
| Proportionality | Data use must be necessary and not excessive |
| Transparency | Decision-making processes should be explainable |
| Privacy Protections | Personal data must be collected, used, and stored lawfully |
⚖️ Landmark Case Law (More Than Five)
1. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts:
Mr. Kioa was denied a visa based on adverse information without being notified.
Legal Issue:
Whether procedural fairness required informing a person of adverse information used against them.
Relevance to Big Data:
This case laid the foundation that adverse information — including data — cannot be used secretly in administrative decisions.
Impact:
Established that use of undisclosed data (even from informal sources) without notice breaches natural justice.
2. Re Day [2017] HCA 2 (Full Court)
Facts:
A High Court challenge regarding eligibility to sit in Parliament revealed sensitive financial data and disclosures.
Legal Issue:
While not purely about administrative law, the case raised serious data integrity and privacy concerns in public disclosure.
Relevance:
Illustrated the tension between public interest and individual privacy in governmental use of personal data.
3. Privacy Commissioner v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2017] FCAFC 4
Facts:
Telstra refused to provide all metadata it held about a customer. The Privacy Commissioner found this a breach.
Legal Issue:
Whether metadata constitutes "personal information" under the Privacy Act.
Relevance to Administrative Law:
Government bodies using metadata (e.g. in immigration, law enforcement) must treat it as personal information and provide access and correction rights.
Impact:
Clarified that metadata is subject to privacy protections, even if collected via automated systems.
4. ‘Robodebt’ Case – Amato v Commonwealth of Australia [2021] FCA 1019
Facts:
Robodebt was an automated welfare recovery system based on income averaging from ATO data, without manual verification.
Legal Issue:
Whether the debts raised were lawful and whether the process denied procedural fairness.
Decision:
The Federal Court found the Robodebt scheme unlawful. It used automated, inaccurate data and failed to afford procedural fairness to welfare recipients.
Significance:
Landmark case in big data abuse.
Highlighted risks in automated decision-making without human oversight.
Reinforced duty of individualised assessment and fairness in administrative processes.
5. Pintarich v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCAFC 79
Facts:
A taxpayer received a letter from the ATO suggesting a payment arrangement had been accepted, generated by an automated system.
Legal Issue:
Whether the letter amounted to a binding administrative decision.
Decision:
The Court held that automated or computer-generated letters are not binding decisions unless authorised by a real human decision-maker.
Relevance:
Raised concerns about algorithmic decision-making in administrative law.
Emphasised the need for human agency and accountability.
6. SZMDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 240 CLR 611
Facts:
A refugee applicant’s claims were rejected due to inconsistencies in data and credibility concerns.
Legal Issue:
Whether the decision-maker properly considered all relevant information and avoided legal error.
Relevance:
Demonstrated how use of inconsistent or incomplete data can unfairly affect credibility assessments in immigration decisions.
Highlighted the importance of data interpretation in administrative law.
7. WZARH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 40
Facts:
The Minister refused a visa based on secret national security information.
Legal Issue:
Whether the use of unseen adverse data denied procedural fairness.
Decision:
The High Court found that the applicant must be given a meaningful opportunity to respond.
Relevance to Big Data:
Even where information is sensitive (e.g. national security databases), minimum standards of fairness must be upheld.
8. ‘My Health Record’ Privacy Concerns (Administrative Law Context)
Background (not a single case):
The introduction of My Health Record, a centralised electronic health database, raised significant privacy concerns. Individuals were automatically enrolled unless they opted out.
Legal Response:
Although not directly litigated in one case, administrative law scrutiny and public pressure led to:
Stronger privacy protections
Legal reforms to control access and data sharing
Relevance:
Administrative programs involving health data must meet privacy, transparency, and consent standards.
🧠 Key Takeaways: Legal Challenges
| Challenge | Explanation | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of transparency | Big data systems often operate without explaining how decisions are made | Loss of accountability |
| Automated errors | Algorithms may average or misread data | Incorrect decisions, as in Robodebt |
| Procedural unfairness | Individuals may not know data used against them | Breach of natural justice |
| Data breaches and misuse | Sensitive data may be leaked or misused | Privacy violations |
| Lack of oversight | Delegation to machines reduces human accountability | Legality of decisions questioned |
🏛️ Role of Administrative Law
Administrative law helps ensure that use of big data by government:
Is lawful
Respects privacy and consent
Allows for review and appeal
Is subject to scrutiny by tribunals and courts
Key laws that interact with this space include:
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1982
Human Rights Acts (state-based)
✅ Conclusion
Big Data offers opportunities for efficiency and predictive decision-making in administration, but it also introduces serious legal risks. Administrative law plays a crucial role in checking abuse, ensuring that:
Automated decisions remain reviewable and accountable,
Data use respects privacy and procedural fairness, and
Citizens can challenge errors or unfair treatment.
These landmark cases illustrate that legal safeguards must evolve alongside technology, preserving individual rights in the digital age.
RELATED Blog
0 comments