Privacyand FOI PolicyBranch
Departmentof thePrimeMinisterand Cabinet
1 National Circuit
BARTONACT2600
Byemail:
4 November2011
IssuesPaper:‘ACommonwealthStatutoryCause ofActionforSerious Invasion of Privacy’
Dear Departmentof PrimeMinisterand Cabinet
WewelcometheopportunitytocommentontheIssuesPaper,‘A CommonwealthStatutoryCauseofAction for SeriousInvasionofPrivacy,’released by theDepartment ofPrimeMinisterand CabinetinSeptemberthisyear.
Communitylegalcentresand our client base
TheFederationofCommunityLegalCentres (Vic)Inc (‘theFederation’)is the peak body for49Victorian communitylegal centres(CLCs). TheFederationleadsandsupportsVictorian CLCs tomakejusticeaccessibleforall. The Federation:
provides informationand referralstopeopleseeking legal assistance;
initiatesand resourceslawreformand policywork todevelopa fairer legalsystemthat betterrespondstotheneedsof thedisadvantaged;
works to build a strongerandmoreeffectivecommunity legal sector;
provides services andsupporttocommunity legalcentres;and
representscommunitylegal centres with stakeholders.
CLC clientsincludemanypeoplewhoareaffectedby financialhardship, homelessness,mentalillnessand disability.ThemostrecentCommonwealth Government reviewof thecommunity legal sectornotedthat58% of CLCclients receive someformofincome support, 82%earnlessthan $26,000perannumandalmost 9% have someformofdisability.1
The need forastatutory cause ofaction
In2009, the Federationmadea detailed submission totheVictorian Law ReformCommission(‘VLRC’)consultationon SurveillanceinPublicPlaces. Asweoutlinedin thatsubmission, wesupporttheintroductionofa statutorycauseofactionfor
1 Attorney-General’s Department,ReviewoftheCommonwealthCommunity Legal Services Program:March 2008,6, availableat October2011).
serious invasionsofprivacy.2
Thecasework ofourmemberCLCs highlightsthattheclientsthat weserve are vulnerable toserious breaches of theirprivacy. Existing privacy cases,from theemergingAustralian jurisprudenceand overseas,demonstratethat a statutorycause ofactionforserious invasionofprivacy couldaffordsignificant protection todisadvantagedAustralians.
Inparticular,weareconcerned tolimitthe impactof public placesurveillanceonvulnerable and marginalisedmembersofsociety. CLCcasework suggeststhatyoungpeople, thehomelessandAboriginal and Torres StraitIslander peoplearedisproportionatelyaffectedby surveillanceinpublicplaces.3 These groupsoftenhave limited access toprivaterecreationalspaces and are thereforefrequentusersofpublicspace. Increasinglevelsofsurveillancecanhaveasignificanteffectonthesegroups’use andenjoymentof publicspaces.4 Webelievethat everyoneisentitledtoa measureofprivacy, even inpublic spaces. Astatutory causeofactioncould domuchtoprotecttherightsofpeople whorelymostheavilyonpublicspaces.
Jurisdictionalissues andaccesstojustice forunrepresented parties
Inour submissiontotheVLRC Inquiry,weendorsed theLawInstituteofVictoria’s proposal togive the VictorianCiviland AdministrativeTribunal(‘VCAT’) jurisdictionover actions forinvasionofprivacy.5 Dueto the VCAT’s informalityand lowcost,itisgenerallythemostappropriatejurisdictionforVictorian CLCclientsand otherlow-income people.The VLRC agreedand recommendedthat ‘[j]urisdiction tohearanddetermine thecausesofactionforserious invasion ofprivacy… should bevestedexclusivelyinthe Victorian Civiland Administrative Tribunal.’6
Weareawarethatconstitutionalissuesprevent theCommonwealthGovernment fromconferringjurisdictionon the VCATorotherStatetribunals. Although weagree withthe VLRC that consistent,national lawsinthis areaare desirable,7 it is vital that
there bea suitablejurisdiction forthestatutory causeofaction.
2 FederationofCommunityLegal Centres,Submissionto theVictorian LawReformCommission
2009 inquiry,Surveillancein Public Places(‘VLRCSurveillanceInquiry), availableat
0404a0a5f923efbf5f2791d4a/Submission+40+Federation+of+Community+Legal+Centres+%28V
ic%29+Inc+31.07.09.pdf(accessed31 October2011).
3 Werefertothesubmissions ofourmembercentres(Youthlaw, theStKildaLegal Service,the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Serviceand FitzroyLegal Service)totheVLRCSurveillanceInquiry, availableat 31 October2011).
4 See,eg,Chris Middendorp,‘Hot property:public spaceforfun and profit’ (2006)1Parity 17 and
Michael Sheehan,‘Nowheretogo:excluded from public and privatespaces’ (2006)1Parity 19.
5 Law InstituteofVictoria,Submission totheVLRCSurveillanceInquiry,availableat
0404a0a5d9226fbf5f2791d4a/Submission+27+Law+Institute+of+Victoria+06.07.09.pdf
(accessed 31 October2011).
6 Victorian LawReform Commission, Surveillance inPublicPlaces:FinalReport(2010),availableat 31 October2011), 164.
7 Ibid 128.
Pg 2 – FederationofCommunity LegalCentres (Vic)Inc
WhileCLCs areable toprovideinitiallegaladviceinmanyareasoflawincluding privacy,inmostcasesCLCs donothavetheresourcestorepresenttheirclientsincourt. Grantsoflegal aid arelikewise very limitedinciviland administrative law.Accordingly,inmanycases,lowincomeclients with meritoriousprivacycasesmaybe unabletoaccesslegal representation.Lack oflegal representationis asignificantdisincentivetobringing proceedings and thisdisincentiveis compoundedifthejurisdictionis onewherecostsfollowthe event, ie;thelosingpartymustpaysome orallof the winning party’slegal costs.
Toaddress this, we stronglyrecommend thattheGovernment:
vestjurisdictionexclusivelyintheFederalMagistrates Court;
providethatinproceedings alleginga serious invasionof privacy, eachparty bearstheirown legal costs(with theusualexceptions forunreasonable conductetc);and
providetargetedfundingforpermanentSelf-RepresentedLitigant Coordinators
ineveryFederalMagistratesCourtinAustralia.Forseveralyears the VictorianSupreme Courthas employed a Self-RepresentedLitigantCoordinator.TheCoordinator ‘provides proceduralguidance andassistance’tounrepresentedparties,8 aswellasreferringparties to sources offreelegal advice, includingCLCs,VictoriaLegal Aid and the VictorianBarProBonoScheme.
Webelievethatsuch supportis vital,iftheproposedstatutory causeofactionis toprovide any tangible benefitforlow-incomeand disadvantagedgroups.
Recommendation1:
TheCommonwealth Governmentshould createa statutory causeofaction forseriousinvasionofprivacy.
Recommendation2:
Thelegislationshould clearlystate thatunauthorised orimproper use ofsurveillance inpublicplaces mayconstitutea serious invasionofprivacy.Recommendation3:
Jurisdiction should bevestedexclusively intheFederalMagistratesCourt.
Recommendation4:
Inproceedings alleginga serious invasionofprivacy,thepartiesshouldbear their own legal costs(subjecttotheusualexceptions).
Recommendation 5:
TheCommonwealth Governmentshould fundtheappointmentofpermanent Self-Represented LitigantCoordinators ineveryFederal MagistratesCourtinAustralia. Among other things, theseCoordinators should berequired toassistunrepresentedpartieswho wish tocommencelegal actions forserious invasion
ofprivacy.
Thank youagainforthisopportunity tocommenton theproposedstatutorycauseofaction forserious invasionofprivacy.
8SupremeCourtofVictoria website, October2011).
Pg 3 – FederationofCommunity LegalCentres (Vic)Inc
Should youwish todiscuss any aspectofthis submission,pleasedon’thesitate to
contactmeon(03)96521512orvia erely
Lucinda O’Brien
PolicyOfficer
Pg 4 – FederationofCommunity LegalCentres (Vic)Inc