What can religious organisations shield from the Privacy Act?

The Judgment

The judge rejected the Mr McKenzie's arguments. Firstly, he determined that, viewed in context, the words relied on by the Church in the Privacy Act indicate an intention to restrict exemptions from the Privacy Principle to statutory tribunals. As regards to policy, his Honour did not accept that the legislature intended to exempt non-statutory tribunals from the Privacy Principle:

Indeed, I consider that the reverse is true. It is certainly not difficult to imagine circumstances in which information about a person might be given to such a body with the resultant creation of a very real and legitimate interest in that individual to know what the information is.

He added that

I find it difficult to see how making available to an individual information that she has requested about herself can raise any implications which might affect religious belief or its manifestation or any issue of Church doctrine. Such matters would remain within the safe keeping of the Tribunal concerned, unless published by the individual herself.

The Church sought leave to appeal. The application came before the same judge, who granted leave, stating that the matter raised public law issues of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal, as it affected a potentially significant class of non-statutory bodies.

The case did not come to hearing, as the Church settled. This leads to speculation as to why they settled.

If Catholic Tribunals are accepted at law, so could be those of other religions. Recognition by the law would also result in pressure to conform to the rule of law, which would mean greater transparency and openness, rather than the secrecy desired. The Catholic Tribunal procedures and findings could be subject to scrutiny and appeal.

Conclusion

The Church cannot now lean on the state to support its breaches of human rights, such as the gathering and holding of secret information about people, and the use of this to materially affect their lives through decision-making behind closed doors. By not proceeding with their Appeal, the Church was quietly conceding that it is not above the rule of law in respect of matters not directly related to theology. It is a pity the conclusion to an important case like this was not reported in the press.