50 The present proceeding has nothing to do with the "finance law". Further, the fact that the Australian Information Commissioner is an "official" of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and not the listed entity for the purpose of the "finance law" does not mean that the Australian Information Commissioner cannot be, or is not, the proper party in proceedings for judicial review of a decision made under s 41 of the Privacy Act.
51 Thirdly, the present application does not provide the occasion to explore the scope and reach of s 35 of the AIC Act. Whatever scope or reach s 35 might have, it cannot justify the inappropriate joinder, or the misnaming, of a party to a legal proceeding.
52 Fourthly, for the reasons given by Tracey J at [7] in Giddings, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate that a named individual be identified as the respondent in the proceeding.
53 The applicant has misnamed the respondent in the originating application. The respondent's name should be changed to "Australian Information Commissioner" so that the proceeding is properly constituted.
SHOULD THE APPLICANT'S IDENTITY BE SUPPRESSED?
54 The applicant seeks an order that she be identified in this proceeding by a pseudonym and not by her full name.
55 She relies on Australian Privacy Principle 2 (Sch 1 to the Privacy Act) (APP2):
2 Australian Privacy Principle 2––anonymity and pseudonymity
2.1 Individuals must have the option of not identifying themselves, or of using a pseudonym, when dealing with an APP entity in relation to a particular matter.
2.2 Subclause 2.1 does not apply if, in relation to that matter:
- (a) the APP entity is required or authorised by or under an Australian law, or a court/tribunal order, to deal with individuals who have identified themselves; or
- (b) it is impracticable for the APP entity to deal with individuals who have not identified themselves or who have used a pseudonym.
56 In written submissions dated 16 September 2024, the applicant relies only on para 2.1 of APP2 which, she says, gives her the option of using a pseudonym when dealing with APP entities, including the respondent and the Court (which are both APP entities: see s 6 of the Privacy Act).
57 I am not satisfied that the option to which the applicant refers is available to her. She made her complaint under s 36 of the Privacy Act in her own name. She did not seek anonymity or seek
