4November2011
MrRichardGlenn
Head,PrivacyandFOIPolicyBranch
DepartmentofthePrimeMinisterandCabinet
1NationalCircuit
BARTONACT2600
DearRichard
Re:AStatutoryCauseofAction
IrefertotheIssuesPapermadeavailableinSeptember. IattachtheAPF'sSubmission.
OurSubmissionisopen.
WeapplaudtheDepartment'spolicyonconfidentialityasfarasitgoes,buturgethattheDepartment adoptarefinementtoit.
Whereasubmissionismadeinconfidence,wesubmitthattheDepartmentshoulddeclinetoaccept and consider it, unless allof the material that it contains is sufficiently sensitive to justify suppressionfrompublicview.
Thankyou for your consideration. Yourssincerely
RogerClarke
Chair,fortheBoardoftheAustralianPrivacyFoundation
(02) 6288
TheAPF–Australia’sleadingpublicinterestvoiceintheprivacyarenasince1987
AustralianPrivacyFoundation AStatutoryCauseofAction Submissionof4November2011
ExecutiveSummary
TheAustralianPrivacyFoundation(APF)isthecountry'sleadingprivacyadvocacyorganisation. A
briefbackgrounder is attached.
TheAPFstronglysupportsthecreation ofastatutorycause of action, andmade publicstatementsto that effect in 2007 and 2011.Important reasons supporting a statutory cause of action are:
•therearemanyoffensiveintrusionsforwhichnoprivacyprotectivemechanismexists
•manydimensionofprivacylieoutsidethenarrowscopeofexistingprivacylaws.
Theseinclude the privacy of the physical person, the privacy of personal behaviour, and the privacy of personal communications
•manyorganisations,manycategoriesofactions,andindividualsgenerally,areexemptfrom existing privacy protective mechanisms
•mostexistingprivacyprotectionsareineffectual,duetoweaklegislation,lackofresources, lackofenforcementpowers,andtimidityonthepartofprivacyoversightagencies
•such non-privacy actions as exist (e.g. defamation, confidence, negligence) fail to fill the void
Manyoffensiveintrusionsariseinsocietygenerally,includingleaksofpersonaldata,surveillanceof behaviour,interferencewithaperson'sbody,andabuseofpowersbygovernmentagencies.
Inaddition,therearemanyinstancesofoffensiveintrusionsbythemedia. Theseareofgreat concernwheretheyaffect'ordinarypeople',althoughthescopeofthecauseofactionmustalso extendto'celebrities'. Further,contrarytotheassertionsfrequentlymadebymediacommentators, concernsabout mediaabusesoriginatemuchmorefrequentlyinrelationto'tabloidmedia'and
'infotainment',andmuchlessofteninrelationto'qualityoutlets'andgenuine'news-reporting'.
Theneedforthecauseofactionmustbeseenasarisingprimarilyinrelationtosocietyasawhole. Themediamustbeunderstoodtobejustonespecificareaofapplication,andonewhichtowhicha clear,strongandextensivedefinitionofthepublicinterestdefenceapplies,asarticulatedinthe APF'sPolicyStatementon'PrivacyandtheMedia'ofJuly2009.
ClearRecommendationsweremadebyALRC,over3yearsago.Wesubmitthat,inordertoachieve the most desirable form of the cause of action, the legislation should reflect the following refinements totheALRC'sRecommendations:
•thethresholdof'highlyoffensive’istoohigh,asitwouldexcludemanyoffensiveintrusions thataredeservingofremedies. Aplaintiffshouldberequiredtoshowthat:
(a)theplaintiffhasinrelationtoconductorinformationareasonableexpectationofprivacy;
and
(b)theactcomplainedofissufficientlyserioustocause,toapersonofordinary sensibilities,substantialoffenceordistress,intherelevantcontex('offensiveintrusion');
•the balancing of interests should be lefttothe defences.To integrate it intothe cause of actionwouldplaceanunfairburdenofproofontheplaintiff–oftentoproveanegative. However,seeouranswertoquestion8belowconcerningfactorstobetakenintoaccount;
•intention and recklessness, but alsoa serious lack of care, should all be actionable
•there should be no exemptions for any categories of organisations or actions
•thecauseofactionmustbelimitedtoindividuals,becauseprivacyisahumanright
There isapressingneedforthestatutorycauseofaction. TheAPFurgestheGovernmenttotable legislationassoonaspracticable,inordertoimplementtheprotectionsatanearlydate.
– i –
AustralianPrivacyFoundation
AStatutoryCauseofAction
Submissionof4November2011
1.Introduction
TheAustralianPrivacyFoundation(APF)isthecountry'sleadingprivacyadvocacyorganisation. A
briefbackgrounder is attached.
TheAPFstronglysupportsthecreationofastatutorycauseofaction.
Thiswasmadeclearaslongagoin2007,intheAPF'ssubmissiontotheALRC,at
Further,inJuly2011,theAPFpublishedaPolicyStatement,at:
Privacy protection in Australia is seriously inadequate. On the other hand, the privacy interest must always be carefully balanced against other important interests. In particular,privacyprotectionsmustnotobstructthelegitimateroleofthemediain holdingtoaccountgovernments,corporationsandindividualsinpositionsofpower.
TheAPF strongly supports the introduction of a right of action that has the following characteristics:
•itmustavailabletoindividuals,butnottolegalpersonssuchascompanies
•itmustenableacourttograntinjunctions,awarddamages,andimposepenalties
•it must require the court to balance the privacy interests of the litigant against otherimportantinterests,includingandespecially'thepublicinterest'
•it must provide a clear framework and criteria for evaluating a defence that an invasion of privacy is justified in the public interest
TheAPFstronglywelcomeseffectiveconsultationprocesses. Ontheotherhand,webelievethat therehasbeenmorethanenoughdiscussion. WeurgetheGovernmenttotablelegislationassoon aspracticable,inordertomaintainmomentumandimplementtheseprotectionsatanearlydate.
ClearRecommendationsweremadebyALRCover3yearsago.
Wesubmitthat,inordertoachievethemostdesirableformoftheCauseofAction,thelegislation shouldmakeseveralrefinementstotheALRC'sRecommendations. Detailsoftherefinementsthat weproposearepresentedbelow.
2.ResponsestotheIssuesPaper
ThisSubmissionadoptsthefollowingapproach:
•it discusses key points in each of the Issue Paper's sections in turn
•itprovidesanswerstothespecificquestionsasked
•itissupplementedbycopiesof:
•theAPF'sPolicyStatementreaPrivacyRightofAction,ofJuly2011
•theAPF'sPolicyStatementrePrivacyandtheMedia,ofMarch2009
– 1 –
2.1Introduction(pp.7-8)
TheAPFwelcomestherecognitionthatastatutorycauseofactionisamissingelementinthe Australianlegalframeworkforprivacyprotection,andhasbeenidentifiedassuchbythreeLaw ReformCommissions.
Intheareaofinformationprivacy,theenactmentwillfillagap.
However,itwillalsoestablishafoundationfortheprotectionofdimensionsofprivacyforwhichno coherentframeworkiscurrentlyinplace. Thisisfurtheraddressedinsub-section(4)immediately below,andinouranswertoQuestion9b.
Weappreciatethegovernment'sdesiretoreinforcethecaseforthecauseofactionandtoreview thevariationsinthemodelsproposedbythethreeCommissions,inordertorefinethedesignofthe scheme.
However,weurgethegovernmenttomovequicklyanddirectlytoimplementation.
2.2TheCurrentPrivacyContext(pp.9-12)
We believe that this section of the paper providesa reasonable summary of the context.
However,westronglydisagreewiththestatementonpage12that"Inmanycases,recordingsof privateinformationorcollectionsofdataarealsohandledinwaysconsistentwithanentity'sprivacy policy,withtheCommonwealthPrivacyAct,orwithequivalentlaws”.
Thisisanareaofmajorinadequacyinthecurrentprivacyregime. Insome(andwewouldargue many)cases,personalinfomationisnothandledinaccordancewithlawandorganisations’own policies. Non-complianceiscommonplace,duepartlytotheweakandinadequatelyresourced monitoringandenforcementregimesunderexistinglaws.
Organisationsinboththepublicandprivatesectorsknowthatthesanctionsforprivacybreaches are minor to the point of being non-existent, and in any case the chances of detection are low.
Henceorganisations,quiterationally,adoptariskmanagementapproachandgivealowpriorityto privacycomplianceandtraining. Aswearguebelow,theintroductionofacauseofaction,andthe experienceofcasesbroughtundertheright,willhelptofocusmanagementattentiononprivacy issuesandwillintimeleadtohigherlevelsofcompliance.
2.3ThePresentStateoftheLaw...(pp.13-22)
Webelievethatthissectionprovidesareasonablesummaryofthepresentstateofprivacylaw.
Wenote that the overseas comparisons mostly support the introduction of a privacy cause of action.
2.4IsThereaNeed...(pp.23-31)
Thereisapressingneedforastatutorycauseofaction.
Thecauseofactionhasbeenthesubjectofmediareportsinsuccessivewavessince2005, correspondingwiththeALRCDiscussionPaperandlaterReport,theNSWLRCDiscussionPaperand laterReport,theVLRCDiscussionPaperandlaterReport,andtheSenateCommitteeonOnline PrivacyHearingsandlaterReport.
Therehas been a regrettable and unjustified focus in media reporting on the application of the cause ofactiontothemediaitself.
– 2 –
Itisveryimportantthatconsiderationoftheneedforthecauseofactionfocusprimarilyonsociety asawhole,withthemediaasjustonespecificareaofapplication–albeitoneinwhichthepublic interestdefencewillbeparticularlyrelevant.
Wepresentinthissub-sectioninformationrelatingto:
•thereasonswhytheneedarises
•examplesofprivacyabusesthatariseinsocietygenerally
•examplesofmediabehaviourthatmustbesubjecttothecauseofaction
(1)ReasonsWhytheNeedArises
Theneedderivesfrommanyfactors,importantamongthemthefolllowing:
•many actions taken by organisations and individuals are highly privacy-invasive, and unjustifiablyso,buteithernomechanismexistsatallforpreventingthemorenablingaction against people who perform them, or alternativelya mechanism exists but is ineffectual
•someactionsthatareseriouslyandunjustifiablyprivacy-invasivelieoutsidethenarrow scope of existing privacy laws.Important examples include:
•invasionsoftheprivacyofthephysicalperson
•invasionsoftheprivacyofpersonalbehaviour
•invasions of the privacy of personal communications
•invasionsofprivacybyorganisationsthatare,orwhoseactionsare,exemptfrom privacylaw,suchaslawenforcementandnationalsecurityagencies,most organisationsinrelationtotheiremployees,andmostsmallbusinessinrelationtotheir customers
•invasionsofprivacybyindividuals
•invasionsofprivacythatareexcludedfromthescopeofprivacyoversightagenciesby virtueoftheverylargenumbersofjurisdictionallimitationswithinprivacylaws
•some actions that are seriously and unjustifiably privacy-invasive are nominally within-scope ofaprivacyoversightagency,butsuchprotectionsasexistareineffectual. Reasonsfor thisinclude:
•lackofresourcesinthehandsoftheprivacyoversightagency
•timidity on the part of the privacy oversight agency
•lackofenforcementpowersinthehandsoftheprivacyoversightagency
•suchnon-privacyactionsasexist(suchasdefamation,confidenceandnegligence)failtofill the void, because they are variously inapplicable, fit very poorly to the need, or do not provide appropriate and effective controls and remedies
(2)Non-MediaExamples
Aprivacycauseofactionmustbeavailableinrelationtoanykindofaction,harminganykindof privacy,performedbyanynaturalorlegalperson. Onlyinthatwaycanthecauseofactioncreate the opportunity for balance, and act as a brake on excessive behaviour.
TherearemanycircumstancesthattheAPFbelievescouldgiverisetoapplicationofthecauseof action. Someimportantcategoriesinclude:
•leaks of personal data from government agencies and private-sector organisations:
•in circumstances in which the organisation has clearly failed its obligations in relation to thesecurityofsensitivedata
•asa result of abuse of privilege by individual employees
•surveillanceofanindividual'sactions(whetherornotanypersonaldataarisesfromthe activity), including observation by individuals
– 3 –
•interferencewithaperson'sbody,suchasunjustifiedacquisitionofsamplesofbodyfluids, e.g.fordrugtesting,orofbiometricmeasures,e.g.forclockingonandoffwork
•abuseofpowersbylawenforcementandnationalsecurityagencies,suchasunjustified arrest,unjustifiedhumiliation,unjustifiedsearchandidentificationproceduresandunjustified deprivationofliberty. Somerecentorwell-knownexamplesinthisparticularcategory,who mustbeabletopursuecasesundersuchacauseofaction(whetherornottheyhave recourseunderanyothercauseofaction),includethefollowing:
•PrashantCherkupalli,reportedonat:
•MuhamedHaneef
•MusaKonneh,reportedonat: news/class-action-filed-over-glitch-wrongly-jailing-young-people-20110608-1fs1h.html
•CorneliaRau
•VivianSolon
Thereisaccordinglyapressingneedforastatutorycauseofactionthatappliesgenerallytoall organisations,andallindividuals,withoutexception. Itisofcoursevitalthatmanyotherconditions andthresholdtestsbeapplied,butthesearethesubjectofotherpartsofthetheIssuesPaperand ofthisSubmission.
(3)MediaExcesses
Thereareall-too-frequentinstancesofseriouslyandunjustifiablyprivacy-invasiveactionsbythe media. However,contrarytotheassertionsfrequentlymadebymediacommentators,thesearise onlyinfrequentlyin'qualityoutlets'andgenuine'news-reporting',andwhentheydotheyareinmost casesfollow-onreportingabout'stories'thathavebeenfirstpublishedelsewhere.
Thevastmajorityofseriouslyandunjustifiablyprivacy-invasiveactionsbythemediaoriginate outside 'quality outlets' and genuine 'news-reporting',in the grey zones of 'info-tainment'and outright
'creativeentertainment',whichhaverepresentedaverylargeproportionoftheoutputofmedia organisationsinrecentyears.
Herearesomeindividualswhohavea'mediaprofile'andwhohavebeenthesubjectofserious mediaexcesses:
•LaraBingle
•BelindaEmmett
•AndrewEttinghausen
•CandiceFalzon
•DeltraGoodrem
•PaulineHansen
•NicoleKidman
•Jess Origliasso
•NickRiewoldt
•SonnyBillWilliams
Whilemostoftheexamplesthatcometopublicattentionrelateto'celebrities',therearealsomany thatinvolve'ordinary'peoplebutwhich,forthatreason,arelessmemorableandlessreadilyre- discovered when preparing a Submission of this nature.
Itisessentialthatthedebateaboutacauseofactionnotbeundulyinfluencedbyquestionsasto whetherthe'victim' hasapublicprofile. Thatmay(ormaynot)berelevanttoapublicinterest defence,butitisnotrelevanttowhetherornottherehasbeenanoffensiveintrusion.
– 4 –
Hereareacoupleofrecentexamplesofindividualswhoarenototherwisewell-known,but whohavebeenthesubjectofseriousmediaexcesses:
•the14-year-oldgirlinterviewedbyJackieOandKyleSandilands
•MadaleinePulver
•the14-year-oldboychargedwithdrugpossessioninBali: e6frg6nf-1226181938888
Wedrawtoattentiononeglaringinstancethatoriginatedinwhatisarguablya'qualityoutlet', which unsuccessfullysoughttojustifypublicationonthebasisofitbeing'news-reporting'ona matter with an overriding public interest:
•DavidCampbell
Inallofthesecases,thedisclosures,andinmanycasesalsothecollectionmethods,appearfrom the coveragetohavebeenseriouslyandunjustifiablyprivacy-invasiveactions. Moreover,we believethatpublicopinionlargelyagreeswiththatcontention.
Whetheractionsbyanyoftheseindividualsunderaprivacycauseofactionwouldhavesucceeded cannot of coursebecertain–thatwouldbeforthecourtstodetermine. Circumstancesand considerationswouldcometolightduringproceedingsthatarenottypicallyreported–hencethe importanceofaproperjudicialprocess,ratherthan'trialbymedia’.
TheAustralianPressCouncilandACMAhavecomprehensivelydemonstratedtheirinadequacies, ACMAparticularlysointhecaseofDavidCampbell. Evencareer-hardenedjournalistswereaghast that Channel 7 escaped scot-free.
The APF sought a dialogue with the media industry and profession in early 2009, with a view to the establishment of much stronger bases for gauging the public interest.The APF's Policy Statement is at Itproved impossible toevenachievemeaningfulresponsesfromeitherthemediaindustryorthemedia profession,letalonedialogue.
Asageneralstatement,self-regulationisanexcuse,notasolution. Themediahaveproven themselvestobeincapableofconductingtheprocesswellenoughtoenableittobeprojectedeven asahalf-decentexcuse.
Thereisaccordinglyapressingneedforthestatutorycauseofactiontoapplygenerally,includingto themedia,withoutexception. Itisofcoursevitalthatmanyotherconditionsandthresholdtestsbe applied, but these are the subject of other parts of the the Issues Paper and of this Submission.
2.5ElementsoftheCauseofAction (pp.24-38)
WeaddressseveralaspectsofthissectioninouranswerstoQuestions4-7,below.
Thedefinitionoftheprivacyactionshouldbeingeneralterms,butthethresholdof'highlyoffensive’ istoo high,asitwouldexcludemanyintrusionsthatareasonablepersonwouldregardas objectionableanddeservingofremedies.
Aplaintiff should be required to show that in all the circumstances:
(a)the plaintiff has in relationto conduct or informationa reasonable expectation of privacy;and
(b)the act complained of is sufficientlyserious to cause, to a person of ordinary sensibilities, substantialoffenceordistress,intherelevantcontext.
Theassessmentofhowa'personofordinarysensibilities'wouldreactmustbecontextspecific. For example,apersonwhojustexperiencedanaccidentorthelossofalovedonemaybe particularly sensitive.
– 5 –
2.6...RelevantFactors(pp.39-40)
WeaddressseveralaspectsofthissectioninouranswertoQuestion8below.
2.7...theTypesofInvasion...(p.41)
It is essential that the cause of action be broad enough to cover all dimensions of privacy.It must not berestricted,forinstance,tothepublicationofprivatefacts–whichisthetypeofprivacybreach thathasmostcommonlybeenatissueinthecasesthathavecomebeforethecourtstodate.
We addressseveralaspectsofthissectioninouranswerstoQuestion9below.
2.8DefencesandExemptions(pp.42-44)
WeaddressseveralaspectsofthissectioninouranswerstoQuestions10-11below.
2.9Remedies(pp.45-46)
WeaddressseveralaspectsofthissectioninouranswerstoQuestions12-14below.
2.10ResolvingMattersWithoutResorttoLitigation(p.47)
WeaddressseveralaspectsofthissectioninouranswertoQuestion15below.
2.11OtherIssues(pp.48-50)
WeaddressseveralaspectsofthissectioninouranswerstoQuestions16-19below.
ClassActions
Provisionshouldbemadeforrepresentativeorclassactions,withappropriaterules,toaddressthe many privacy intrusions that affect multiple individuals.A different cap on damages should apply.
– 6 –
3.ResponsestoSpecificQuestions
ThetextofourSubmissionaboveshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeanswersprovidedbelow. Insomecases,ithasbeenappropriatetorepeatsomesegmentsoftextinbothplaces.
(1)Dorecentdevelopmentsintechnologymeanthatadditionalwaysofprotecting individuals’privacyshouldbeconsideredinAustralia?
Yes.
Developmentssuchassocialmediaandcloudcomputing,andtheincreasinguseofbiometrics, CCTVandmobiledevices,whiletheymayofferbenefits,havealsoincreasedpressureonprivacy, andexistingprivacylawsarenotadequatetoprovidethelevelofprotectionthatAustraliansexpect.
Thisis,however,nottheonlyreasonwhythestatutorycauseisessential. Othersinclude:
•theinceasinglyprivacy-invasivebehaviouroforganisations,whetherornotthebehaviouris motivatedorenabledbytheavailabilityofnewtechnologies
•the clear gaps that already exist in the privacy protection offered by existing information privacyandotherlaws
•the failure of a common law tort to emerge, despite four decades of public concern and earnestanalysisinlawjournals
(2)Isthereaneedforacauseofactionforseriousinvasionofprivacyin Australia?
EmphaticallyYes.
Thisis comprehensively addressed in section (4) above.
(3)Shouldanycauseofactionforseriousinvasionofprivacybecreatedbystatuteor beleft todevelopmentatcommonlaw?
The ideathatacommon lawtortmight emerge has been discussed inthe literaturefor 40years.But almostnothinghashappened. Andinanycase,thecourtscanonlydealwithcasesthatcome beforethem, andhenceanycommonlawtortthatemergedwoulddealinapiecemealand unsatisfactorymannerwiththeproblems,andwouldadaptveryslowlytofuturechangesincontext.
Itisalsohighlylikelythatindividualcourtswouldbeunabletoachievebalancebetweenprivacyand otherinterests,andthattheoutcomeswouldbenotonlyhighlyuncertainbutalsoinsomeinstances inappropriate froma public policy perspective.
Itisessentialthatthecauseofactionbecreatedbystatute,inordertocarefullysculptthecauseof actiontothepublicpolicyneed.
(4)Is‘highlyoffensive’anappropriatestandardforacauseofactionrelatingto serious invasionsofprivacy?
No.
Highly offensive istoo highathreshold, and would excludemany intrusionsthatareasonable person would regard as objectionable and deserving of remedies.
Aplaintiff should be required to show that, in all the circumstances:
(a)the plaintiff has in relationto conduct or informationa reasonable expectation of privacy;and
(b)the act complained of is sufficientlyserious to cause, to a person of ordinary sensibilities, substantialoffenceordistress,intherelevantcontext.
– 7 –
(5)Shouldthebalancingofinterestsinanyproposedcauseofactionbeintegrated intothecauseofaction(ALRCorNSWLRC)orconstituteaseparatedefence (VLRC)?
Thebalancing of interests should be left to the defences.Integrating this balancing into the cause of actionwouldunfairlyplaceaburdenofproofontheplaintiff–oftentoproveanegative. However, seeouranswertoquestion8belowconcerningfactorstobetakenintoaccount.
(6)Howbestcouldastatutorycauseofactionrecognisethepublicinterestin freedom of expression?
Freedomofexpression,andotherimportantpublicinterests,canbeadequatelyprotectedbywell craftedstatutorydefences. Seeouranswertoquestion10below.
(7)Istheinclusionof‘intentional’or‘reckless’asfaultelementsforanyproposed causeofactionappropriate,orshoulditcontaindifferentrequirementsasto fault?
It is essential that both intentional and reckless breaches be subject to the cause of action.
Wefurthersubmitthatanactionshouldnotfailmerelybecauseabreachwasnegligent. Aserious lackofcarethatfallsshortofrecklessnessshouldbeactionable(subjecttotheotherrequirements), buttheremediesshouldreflecttheextentofthecarelessness.
(8)Shouldanylegislationallowfortheconsiderationofotherrelevantmatters,and,if so,isthelistofmattersproposedbytheNSWLRCnecessaryandsufficient?
OfthelistofrelevantmatterssuggestedbytheNSWLRC,somewouldbeappropriatefactorstobe specifiedasneedingtobetakenintoaccountinestablishingwhethertheprimarytestof'offensive intrusion’hasbeenmet,buttheyshouldnotbeseparatetests.
Othermattersinthelist,suchastheclaimant'spublicprofile,aremoreappropriatelylefttothe defence.
Thelegislationshouldnotprecludethecourtsfrominterpretingthelawinsuchamannerthat additionalmattersthatmayberelevantcanalsobeconsidered.
(9a)Shouldanon-exhaustivelistofactivitieswhichcouldconstituteaninvasionof privacybeincludedinthelegislationcreatingastatutorycauseofaction,orin other explanatorymaterial?
Anexpresslynon-exhaustivelistofactivitiesshouldbeincludedinthelegislation,soastoclearly illustratethebreadthofthecauseofaction. Suchalegislativeapproachhasprovensuccessful,in variouscontexts,bothinAustraliaandoverseas.
(9b)Ifalistweretobeincluded,shouldanychangesbemadetothelistproposedby theALRC?
A non-exhaustivelistofactivitiesshouldincludeatleastthefollowing(allofwhichdeliberatelyrefer toaperson’sprivatelife,whichmustremainthefocusofthecauseofaction):
(a)therehasbeenanintrusionintoanindividual’shome,familyorotherwiseprivatelife;
(b)anindividualhasbeensubjectedtosurveillanceintheirhome,familyorotherwiseprivatelife; (c) an individual’s private written, oral or electronic communication has been interfered with,
misused or disclosed;
(d)sensitive facts relating to an individual’s private life have been disclosed.
– 8 –
(10)Whatshouldbeincludedasdefencestoanyproposedcauseofaction?
Anon-exhaustivelistofdefencesshouldbeincludedinthelegislation.Thelistshouldinclude versionsofallthedefencesrecommendedbythethreeLawReformCommissions,appropriately reconciledandintegrated.
Inaddition,clearerandfullerexpressionsofthedefencesforfreedomofspeechinthepublic interest,andfreedomofartisticexpressionareneeded. Attentionisdrawntotheformulationsinthe APF'sPolicyStatementof26March2009,copyattached.
(11a)Shouldparticularorganisationsortypesoforganisationsbeexcludedfromthe ambitofanyproposedcauseofaction...?
No.
Thereshouldbenototalorevenpartialexemptionsforanyorganisationsoractivities.
(11b)Should...defencesbeusedtorestrictitsapplication?
Yes.
Thedefenceswillbesufficienttoprotectotherpublicandprivateinterests.
(12)AretheremediesrecommendedbytheALRCnecessaryandsufficientfor,and appropriateto,theproposedcauseofaction?
AlltheremediessuggestedbytheALRCshouldbeavailable.
(13)Shouldthelegislationprescribeamaximumawardofdamagesfornon-economic loss,andifso,whatshouldthatlimitbe?
Thereshouldbecapontheamountofdamagesfornon-economicloss.Thiswouldhelptodispelthe alarmismbeingspreadbymediaorganisationsthataprivacycauseofactionwouldbea'honeypot', giving rise to actions motivated more by avarice than by genuine harm, as defamation law appears to havebeenbeforetheintroductionofcaps.
(14)Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionrequireproofofdamage? Ifso,howshould damagebedefinedforthepurposesofthecauseofaction?
Thereshouldbenorequirementforproofofdamage,assomeprivacyintrusionswillsimplybe inherentlyoffensive,irrespectiveofanyparticularharm.
(15)Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionalsoallowforanofferofamendsprocess?
Yes.
An offer of amends process would be an appropriate inclusion which should result in acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour, and the settlement of many actions without the private andpubliccostsoffullcourtproceedings.
(16)Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionberestrictedtonaturalpersons?
Yes.
Itis essential that the cause of action be restricted to natural persons.
Privacyisafundamentalhumanright,recognisedintheUDHR,ICCPR,andmanyotherhumanrights instruments. Undernocircumstancesmusttheconceptofprivacyrightsbedebasedbypermitting the right to be applied in any manner whatsoever to legal persons.
– 9 –
(17)Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionberestrictedtolivingpersons?
WeareinclinedtosupporttheanalysisoftheNSWLRC,totheeffectthatthereshouldbenorightof actiononbehalfofdeceasedpersons.
However,itisimportantthatthislimitationnotbeframedinsuchawayastocompromiseactionsin relationtooffensiveintrusionsintotheprivacyofotherindividuals. Ofparticularconcernisthe privacyofnext-of-kinandclosefriendsofadeceasedperson.
(18)Withinwhatperiod,andfromwhatdate,shouldanactionforseriousinvasionof privacy berequiredtobecommenced?
Generally,wesupporttherecommendationoftheVLRCforathreeyearlimitationperiod,fromthe dateoftherelevantconduct,tobethenormalrule.
However,wesubmitthatactionsshouldbeabletobecommencedoutsidethatperiod,iftheplaintiff only becameawareoftheconductmorethanthreeyearsafteritoccurred. Insuchcases,a limitationperiodofoneyearafterbecomingawaremaybeappropriate.
(19)Whichforumsshouldhavejurisdictiontohearanddetermineclaimsmadefor seriousinvasionofprivacy?
Thereshouldbethemaximumpossiblechoiceofjurisdiction,includingbutnotlimitedtotheFederal
Magistrates court, in order to minimise costs and procedural barriers in appropriate cases.
– 10 –
APFPolicyStatementreaPrivacyRightofAction
Versionof21July2011
Background
Theneedforeffectiveprivacyprotectionshasbeenwell-understoodfor40years-sinceSirZelman
Cowen's'ThePrivateMan'in1969.
Thecourtshavefailedtodevelopatortofprivacy,andparliamentshaveprovidedonlyverylimited andveryweaklegislation.PrivacyCommissionershavenotbeenprovidedwithpowerstosolve problems,andinanycaserecentfederalPrivacyCommissionersdonothaveastrongrecordof workingtoprotectpeople'sprivacy.
Allthree Law Reform Commissions have recognisedthatthetime has cometo enable peopletotake legal actionagainstunreasonablebehaviourbycompanies,governmentsandotherindividuals. (ALRC 2008, NSWLRC 2009, VLRC 2010). They have framed the new right so as to avoid the risk of achillingeffecton mediafreedom,byincludinga'publicinterestdefence'andarelativelyhigh threshold of 'serious intrusion' that is offensive to a reasonable person. See, in particular, the ALRC's RecommendationNo.74.
DespitetheLRCs'carefulwork,themediahavemountedoppositioncampaignsagainsttheproposal. Therehavebeenstatementsbyproprietorsandexecutives,andhystericalarticlesinthepress–in somecasesbyotherwisesteadyandreponsiblereportersandcommentators.Ashasbeenwell- documented,politicianshavelonglivedinfearofthemedia,particularlytheMurdochpress.The proposalhasaccordinglysatonthebackburnerforaconsiderabletime.
TherevelationsaboutseriousmisbehaviourbyUKNewsCorporationreporters,andquitepossibly by managersandexecutives,hasrevivedinterestintherighttoaction.On21July2011,the Australian GovernmentannouncedthatitwillreleaseaDiscussionPaperonthematter(Media Release,mirroredhere).
TheAPF'sPosition
PrivacyprotectioninAustraliaisseriouslyinadequate.Ontheotherhand,theprivacyinterestmust always be carefully balanced against other important interests. In particular, privacy protections must notobstructthelegitimateroleofthemediainholdingtoaccountgovernments,corporationsand individualsinpositionsofpower.
TheAPF strongly supports the introduction of a right of action that has the following characteristics:
•itmustavailabletoindividuals,butnottolegalpersonssuchascompanies
•itmustenableacourttograntinjunctions,awarddamages,andimposepenalties
•itmustrequirethecourttobalancetheprivacyinterestsofthelitigantagainstotherimportant interests,includingandespecially'thepublicinterest'
•it must provide a clear framework and criteria for evaluating a defence that an invasion of privacy is justified inthe public interest
TheAPFpublisheditsPolicyStatementon'PrivacyandtheMedia'inMarch2009.Thisincludeswhat itbelievestobeanappropriateinterpretationofthepublicinterest.Itwillbesubmittingthistothe Government for consideration.
Inaddition,theAPFstronglysupportstheremovalofthemediaexemptionfromtheexisting provisions of the Privacy Act, as per the ALRC's carefully drafted Recommendation No. 42.
DiscussionPoints
1.Theprivacyrightofactionisnotspecificallyaboutthemedia;butitmustapplytothemediaas wellaseveryotherindividualandorganisation
2.Mediacommentatorsoriginallyreactedhystericallyagainsttheproposal,andhavegrossly misrepresentedwhatitis,andwhatimpactitwouldhave
3.Mediafreedomsarecrucialtoafreesociety,andcrucialtoprivacyinterests.Privacy advocates are intent on ensuring that reasonable behaviour by journalists and publishers is supported,andisnotpreventedorconstrainedbythenewright
4.TheAPFremainsopentodiscussionswiththemediaandotherinterestedorganisations aboutitsPolicyStatementon'PrivacyandtheMedia',withaviewtothedevelopmentofa commonpositiononhowthepublicinterestshouldbedefined
– 11 –
APFPolicyStatementrePrivacyandtheMedia
Versionof26March2009
Preliminary Comments
Freedom of the press isa vital component of democracy.
Theremustbeconstraints,buttheymustbefinelyjudged,inordertoensurethatinappropriate behaviour in business and government can be exposed.
Privacyisakeyhumanvalue,andonethatisoftennotappreciateduntilitislost.Itisimportantthat privacybesufficientlyprotected.
Findingappropriatebalancesbetweenopennessandprivacyischallenging,becauseofthe enormousdiversityofcontexts,andthehighlyvaryinglevelsofconcerndifferentpeoplehaveabout differentaspectsoftheirprivacy.
TheNeed
Aframeworkisneededwithinwhichthemediaareabletoworkwhenmakingdecisionsabout whetherthecollectionofpersonaldata,andthepublicationofpersonaldata,unreasonablyinfringes privacy.Thatframeworkneedstobefilledoutwithguidelinesinrelationtoparticularcategoriesof people,dataandcontexts.Theframeworkandguidelinesneedtobebrief,clearandpractical.They mustnotputthemediainastraitjacket,butmustenablethemtoexerciseprofessionaljudgementin eachsituationasit arises.
TheAPF declares below the Framework it considers to be appropriate. The APF further proposes an indicativesetofGuidelinestoaccompanyandarticulatetheFramework.
Thesearepresentedinfullknowledgeoftheexistencesince2001oftheAustralianPressCouncil (APC)'sStatementofPrinciplesandPrivacyStandards.TheAPF'spositionisthat,afteradecade's experience:
•detailed guidance is necessary
•theFrameworkandGuidelinesneedtoapplytoallmedia
•acomprehensive,gradatedrangeofsanctionsisnecessary
•complaintsschemesmustbecrediblyindependentoftheorganisationsandindividualsthat aresubjecttotheregulation,andcomplaintdeterminationsmustbeappealable
•theAPCdoesnotprovideadequateguidance,andanythatmayexistinthebroadcastingfield is seriously inadequate
•the existing self-regulatory and co-regulatory schemes (i.e. that operated by the APC, and the broadcasting codes administered by ACMA under s. 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act) havenotsatisfiedtheserequirements
The Framework
Thetermthemediaisusedinthisdocumentinacomprehensivemanner,torefertoorganisations andindividualspublishingonaprofessionalbasis,throughprint,radio,television,web-sitesand othermedia,andtheiremployeesandcontractors.
Increasingly,organisationsandindividualsoutsidethemediaareperformingmuchthesamefunctions asthemedia,inalessformalmanner.Appropriatebalancesneedtobeappliedtothemediaright now, sothatthe standards can be appliedtothe general public inthe nearfuture.
Thetermpersonaldatareferstodatathatcanbeassociatedwithanidentifiablehumanbeing.Itis usedinacomprehensivemanner,inordertoencompassalldataformssuchastext,audio,image andvideo.
1.Themediamustnotseek,andmustnotpublish,personaldataunlessajustificationexists.
2.Thejustification:
•mustbebasedon'thepublicinterest',noton'whatthepublicisinterestedin'
•mustbesufficientlyclear
•mustbeofsufficientconsequencethatitoutweighstheperson'sinterestinprivacy
•mustbeofsufficientconsequencethatitoutweighsanyotherconflictinginterestssuch aspublicsecurityandtheeffectivefunctioningofjudicialprocesses
•mustreflecttheGuidelinesapplicableatthetime
– 12 –
•mustnotclaimrelianceonapriorpublication,butrathermuststandonitsown
3.Inordertofacilitatethehandlingofcomplaints,themediamustbeabletoprovidethe justificationforseeking,andforpublishing,personaldata,asdescribedimmediatelyabove.
4.Internalcomplaintsmechanismsmustexist.
5.Externalcomplaintsmechanismsmustexist,whichmustbesuitablyresourced,mustoperate appropriateprocessesinatimelymanner,andmustbecrediblyindependentfromthe complainee.
6.The consideration ofa complaint abouta specific instance of collection or publication of personaldatamusttakeintoaccountinformationprovidedbythecomplainant,thejustification presented,thecontext,theGuidelinesapplicableatthetimetheactinquestionoccurred,and priorinstancesofcomparablesituations.
7.Appropriateformsofactionmustbeavailablewhencomplaintsareupheld.Theprimary recourse needs to be published acknowledgement of inappropriate behaviour, and apology. In the case of privacy intrusions that are serious, blatant or repeated, a gradated series of sanctionsisnecessary,includingprofessionalrebuke,andtheawardofadequate(butnot excessive) damages against corporations and against individuals.
Guidelines
Thediversityofcontextsisenormous.Ontheotherhand,greatdepthofexperiencehasbeen accumulated.Itisnottenableforthepretencetobesustainedthat'therearenorules'.Itis acknowledged,however,thatthe'rules'needtobeexpressedinqualifiedterms,thatprofessional judgementneedstobeapplied,andthatreasonableexerciseofprofessionaljudgementneedstobe takenintoaccountasanimportantmitigatingfactor,evenwhereaparticularactissubsequently judgedtohavebeeninappropriate.TheGuidelinesfocusonpublicationwithinAustralia.
ThefollowingareprovidedasindicativeGuidelines,inordertoconveythesenseofwhattheAPF considerstobefairbalancesbetweenthevitalneedforfreemediaandthehighvalueofpersonal privacy.
Thejustificationforthecollectionorpublicationofpersonaldatamustbebasedononeormoreofthe following:
Consent.Theconsentoftheindividualconcernedissufficientjustificationforpersonaldatatobe collected and published. Particularly for sensitive personal data, express consent is needed. For less sensitivedata,impliedconsentmaybesufficient.Wheremultipleindividualsaredirectlyidentified (ratherthanmerelyindirectlyimplicated),theconsentofeachisneeded.
RelevancetothePerformanceofaPublicOffice.Thisencompassesallarmsofgovernment, i.e.the parliament,theexecutiveandpublicservice,andthejudiciary.Thetestofrelevanceis mediatedbythesignificanceoftherolethepersonplays.PublicationofthefactthataMinister's privatelifehasbeende-stabilised(e.g.bythedeathofafamilymember,marriagebreak-up,orachild withdrugproblems)ismorelikelytobejustifiablethanthesamefactaboutajuniorpublicservant. Publicationoftheidentitiesanddetailsofotherindividualsinvolved(e.g.thepersonwhodied,orthe child with drug problems) is alsosubjecttotherelevancetest, and isfar less likelyto be justifiable.
RelevancetothePerformanceofaCorporateorCivilSocietyFunctionofSignificance. The relevancetestneedstoreflectthesizeandimpactoftheorganisationanditsactions,the person's role and significance, and the scope of publication.
RelevancetotheCredibilityofPublicStatements.Collectionanddisclosureofpersonaldata maybejustifiedwhereitdemonstratesinconsistencybetweenaperson'spublicstatementsand their personal behaviour, or demonstrates an undisclosed conflict of interest.
RelevancetoArguablyIllegal,ImmoralorAnti-SocialBehaviour.Thisappliestoprivate individualsaswellaspeopleperformingfunctionsinorganisations.Forexample,inthecaseofa smallbusinessthatfailstoprovidepromisedafter-salesservice,oraneighbourwhopersistently makesnoiselateatnight,somepersonaldataislikelytoberelevanttothestory,butcollectionand disclosureofotherpersonaldatawillbeverydifficulttojustify.
RelevancetoPublicHealthandSafety.Forexample,disclosureofaperson'sidentitymaybe justifiediftheyareatravellerwhorecentlyenteredAustraliaandtheyarereasonablybelievedto have been exposed to a serious contagious disease.
RelevancetoanEventofSignificance.Forexample,a'humaninterest'storysuchasareporton bushfire-fighterheroics,mayjustifythepublicationofsomelevelofpersonaldatainordertoconvey
– 13 –
thefullpicture.Generally,consentisnecessary;butwherethisisimpracticalandthestorywarrants publication,thevaryingsensitivitiesofindividualsmustbegivensufficientconsideration.Thisis especially important inthecase of peoplecaught up in an emergency ortragedy, who are likelyto be particularlyvulnerable.
AnyOtherJustification.Ajustificationcanbebasedonfurtherfactors.However,inthehandling ofa complaint,anysuchjustificationmustbeargued,andtheonusliesonthepublisherto demonstrate that the benefits of collection or publication outweigh the privacy interest.
MitigatingFactors.Theoutcomeoftheaboverelevancetestsmaybeaffectedbythefollowing factors:
Self-PublishedInformation.Whereanindividualhaspublishedpersonaldataaboutthemselves, thatperson'sclaimtoprivacyissignificantlyreduced.Howeveritisnotextinguished.Inparticular, justificationbecomesmoredifficultthelongertheelapsedtimesincetheself-publicationtookplace, andthelesswidelytheindividualreasonablybelievedtheinformationtohavebeenmadeavailable. Further,onlyinformation publishedbytheindividualthemselvesaffectstherelevancetest,not publication by another individual, evena relative or close friend or associate.
PublicBehaviour.Wheredataaboutanindividualarisesfrompublicbehaviourbythatindividual, theperson'sclaimtoprivacyisreduced.However,publicbehaviourdoesnotarisemerelybecause the individual is 'in a public place'. For example, 'public behaviour' does not include a quiet aside to a companioninapublicplace.
Attention-Seekers.Inthecaseofpeoplewhoarewillinglyinthepubliceye(e.g.celebritiesand notorieties),consenttocollectandpublishsomekindsofpersonaldatamaybereasonablyinferred. Butthisdoesnotconstitute'openslather',andactivedenialofconsentmustberespected.This mitigatingfactorisnotapplicabletotheattention-seeker'sfamilyandcompanions.
CAVEAT. Special care is needed in relation to categories of people who are reasonably regarded as beingvulnerable, especiallychildren andthementally disabled, but depending onthecircumstances, other groups such as homeless people and the recently bereaved.
Resources
ACMA(2009)'BroadcastingCodesIndex'AustralianCommunicationsandMediaAuthority,2009,at
APC(2009)'StatementofPrinciples',AustralianPressCouncil,2001-2009,at
"For the purposes of these principles, 'public interest' is defined as involvinga matter capable of affectingthepeopleatlargesotheymightbelegitimatelyinterestedin,orconcernedabout,whatis goingon,orwhatmayhappentothemortoothers"
APC(2009)'PrivacyStandards',AustralianPressCouncil,2001-2009,at
APF(2007a) 'Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission's Review of Privacy – Answers toquestionsinALRCIssuesPaper31'AustralianPrivacyFoundation,January2007,atpp.14-15of
APF(2007b)'Submissionto'Australia'sRightToKnow'Coalition'sIndependentAuditintotheStateof MediaFreedominAustralia'AustralianPrivacyFoundation,August2007,at
APF(2007c)'SupplementarySubmissionto'Australia'sRightToKnow'Coalition'sIndependentAudit intotheStateofMediaFreedominAustralia'AustralianPrivacyFoundation,October2007,at
APF(2007d)'SubmissiontotheAustralianLawReformCommissionretheReviewofAustralian PrivacyLaw–DiscussionPaper72'AustralianPrivacyFoundation,December2007,atp.68of
Ofcom(2005a)'TheOfcomBroadcastingCode2008–Section8:Privacy'[U.K.]Officeof
Communications,2005,at
"Meaningof'warranted':"...wherebroadcasterswishtojustifyaninfringementof privacy aswarranted,theyshouldbeabletodemonstratewhyintheparticular circumstances of thecase,itiswarranted.Ifthereasonisthatitisinthepublic interest,thenthebroadcastershouldbeabletodemonstratethatthepublicinterest
– 14 –
outweighstherighttoprivacy.Examplesofpublicinterestwouldincluderevealingor detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims made by individuals or organisations or disclosing incompetence that affects the public"
"Meaningof'legitimateexpectationofprivacy':Legitimateexpectationsofprivacywill vary accordingtotheplaceandnatureoftheinformation,activityorconditionin question,the extenttowhichitisinthepublicdomain(ifatall)andwhetherthe individualconcernedisalreadyinthepubliceye.Theremaybecircumstanceswhere peoplecanreasonably expectprivacyeveninapublicplace.Someactivitiesand conditionsmaybeofsuchaprivatenaturethatfilmingorrecording,eveninapublic place,couldinvolveaninfringementofprivacy.Peopleunderinvestigationorinthe publiceye,andtheirimmediatefamilyandfriends,retaintherighttoaprivatelife, although private behaviour can raise issues of legitimate public interest."8.2 Information whichdisclosesthelocationofaperson’shomeor familyshouldnotberevealed withoutpermission,unlessitiswarranted."8.3Whenpeoplearecaughtupinevents whicharecoveredbythenewstheystillhavearighttoprivacyinboththemakingand thebroadcastofaprogramme,unlessitiswarrantedtoinfringeit.Thisappliesbothto thetimewhentheseeventsaretakingplaceandtoanylaterprogrammesthatrevisit thoseevents."8.4Broadcastersshouldensurethatwords,imagesoractionsfilmedor recordedin,orbroadcastfrom,apublicplace,arenotsoprivatethatpriorconsentis required beforebroadcastfromtheindividualororganisationconcerned,unless broadcastingwithouttheirconsentiswarranted".
"Sufferinganddistress"8.16Broadcastersshouldnottakeorbroadcastfootageor audioofpeoplecaughtupinemergencies,victimsofaccidentsorthosesufferinga personal tragedy, eveninapublicplace,wherethatresultsinaninfringementof privacy,unlessit iswarrantedorthepeopleconcernedhavegivenconsent."8.17
Peopleinastateofdistressshouldnotbeputunderpressuretotakepartina programmeorprovideinterviews,unlessitiswarranted."8.18Broadcastersshould takecarenottorevealtheidentityofapersonwhohasdiedorofvictimsofaccidents orviolentcrimes,unlessanduntilitisclearthatthenextofkinhavebeeninformedof theeventorunlessitiswarranted."
"Peopleundersixteenandvulnerablepeople"8.20Broadcastersshouldpayparticular attentiontotheprivacyofpeopleundersixteen.Theydonotlosetheirrightstoprivacy because,forexample,ofthefameornotorietyoftheirparentsorbecauseofeventsin their schools. ...
"Meaningof'vulnerablepeople':"Thisvaries,butmayincludethosewithlearning difficulties,those with mental health problems, the bereaved, people with brain damage orformsofdementia,peoplewhohavebeentraumatisedorwhoaresickorterminally ill."
Ofcom(2005b)'TheOfcomBroadcastingCode2008–GuidanceNotes:Section8:Privacy'[U.K.] OfficeofCommunications,2005,at
"Privatelives,publicplacesandlegitimateexpectationofprivacy"Privacyisleastlikely tobeinfringedinapublicplace.Propertythatisprivatelyowned,asare,forexample, railwaystationsandshops,canbeapublicplaceifreadilyaccessibletothepublic. However,theremaybecircumstanceswherepeoplecanreasonablyexpectadegree ofprivacyevenina publicplace.Thedegreewillalwaysbedependentonthe circumstances."Someactivitiesandconditionsmaybeofsuchaprivatenaturethat filming,eveninapublicplacewheretherewasnormallynoreasonableexpectationof privacy,couldinvolvean infringementofprivacy.Forexample,achildinstateof undress,someonewith disfiguring medicalconditionorCCTVfootageofsuicide attempt."