Submission

Submissionofthe PrivacyCommitteeof

SouthAustraliatothe Issues Paper:

A CommonwealthStatutoryCauseof

Actionfor SeriousInvasionof Privacy

November2011

This submissionrepresentstheviews of thePrivacy Committeeof South Australiaandshouldnot betaken torepresent theviewsor policypositionoftheMinisterortheGovernmentof SouthAustralia.

ExecutiveOfficer

PrivacyCommittee ofSouthAustralia c/oStateRecords ofSouthAustralia

GPOBox2343

ADELAIDESA 5001

Phone(08) 82048786

Page1of6

Introduction

ThePrivacyCommitteeofSouth Australia is established by Proclamationand is responsiblefor theadministrationoftheSouthAustralian(SA) Government’sInformation Privacy Principles issuedasCabinet Instruction 1/198. Thisinstructionregulates theway South AustralianPublic Sector agencies collect,store,useanddisclosepersonal information.TheInformation PrivacyPrinciples Instructioncanbefoundon theState Records website at

Theconcept ofanactionable right to privacyhasa longhistory in South Australia.Three timessincethelate 1960stheSouthAustralia Parliamenthasconsideredanumberof bills to establish anactionforbreach ofprivacy. While noneofthese billswereultimately successful, theirdebaterevealedsignificantsupportfor recognising theimportanceof privacyin law. Themain oppositionto thedevelopment ofastatutoryright toprivacyin

thepastwas the viewthat theproposed legislation did not adequatelybalance therightto privacywith the right tofreeexpression.Thestatutorycauseofactionfor serious

invasionofprivacy proposedbythe AustralianLawReformCommission (ALRC)differs significantlyfromtheSouthAustralianproposalsofthepast. The ALRC proposalsetsa

muchhigher thresholdforestablishingarightofaction. Italso seekstoensurethat the right to privacyisbalancedagainstotherpublicinterests, including theright tofree expression.

Overall,thePrivacyCommitteeofSouthAustralia is broadlysupportive oftheALRC’s proposal. Theremainderof thissubmissionwill respond toeachofthequestions outlined in theIssues Paper.

Reponses toQuestions

1.Dorecentdevelopmentsin technologymean that additionalwaysof protecting

individual’sprivacy should be considered inAustralia?

Astatutorycause ofactionisbut oneelement of thelegalinstrument that could be applied to addressthe challengestotheprotectionofindividual privacyarisingfrom technological development. ThePrivacyAct 1988(Cth)alreadyprovidesa technology neutral basefordealingwith theprotectionofinformationprivacyinrespectofsome privatesectororganisationsandall Commonwealth Government agencies. However, newtechnologies canpose newchallengesto privacyand thelawin thisareashould be regularlyreviewed to ensureadequate protectionforindividuals. An example is the

collectionofpersonal informationvia applicationsforSmartphone’s, tablet computersand

othermobile computingdevicesand itsdisclosuretothirdparties without consent.The Privacy Committeequestionswhetherexistinglawsand enforcementpracticesare flexible enoughtodeal with thedynamicanddiverse rangeofapplication developers trading throughthe Smartphoneapplicationmarket.

Theincreasedavailabilityand lowcostofhighqualityvideo and photographic recording equipmentinmobile phonesand CCTVwhencombined with more effective means of disseminating privateinformationacrosstheworld hasincreasedthepotential harmto an individualwhose privacyhasbeenbreachedbythesetechnologicalmeans.Thishas led tonewstatutoryprovisionsbeingdevelopedin some Australianjurisdictionstoprovidefor protectionsagainst particularinvasionsofprivacy. Forexample, theSummaryOffences

Page2of6

Act1953(SA) was amended toinclude astatutoryoffenceforindecentfilming,andthe distributionofoffensive materialarisingfromsuchfilming.

2.Is thereaneedforastatutorycauseofactionforseriousinvasion ofprivacyin

Australia?

Regulation ofprivacyin Australia ismarked byapatchworkoflegislation, commonlaw, industrycodes andadministrative schemes. Currentprotectionsfor individualprivacydo notapply inall circumstances. Some lawsapplyonlyto specifiedbodiesorconcernthe duties ofspecificrelationships.While the criminal lawcanprovideforprosecutionfor the most serious typesofprivacyinvasion,there isoftennoavenueforredressorremedyfor a personwhohassufferedharmorlossas aresultofa privacyintrusion.

Forexample, there havebeena number ofcasesprosecuted in South Australiafor the summaryoffence ofindecent filming,including the distributionofsuchfilming.Themost recent example includedtheplacement, filmingand recordingofatenantbya landlord throughhiddensurveillancecameras.Thefilming thatwas thesubject of theoffense would beaccuratelycharacterisedas highlyoffensive to areasonable person.Whilst Statelawprovidedforthe prosecutionofanoffence in thematter,it isnot clearwhether thevictimhasappropriate accesstoredressfor theharmcaused.It would seem that in these circumstancesastatutorycause ofactionmayprovidefurther remedyforaperson harmedbyaprivacyintrusion.

Anumberofhigh profile incidentshave demonstratedthelimitationsofAustralianlawto properlyaddressall aspectsofprivacyprotection. Itisunlikelythat thedevelopmentof theactionforbreachofconfidentialitywouldadequatelyaddressthecurrent gaps in protection.Thedisclosure ofprivateinformationaboutanindividual might give rise toan actionforbreachofconfidentiality,butsuchaduty isonly likelyto existin limited circumstances. Itisunclearwhether theactionsofapersonwhofindsand publishes the privateinformationorimage ofa personwith whom theyhave nosignificant relationship wouldfoundanactionforbreach ofconfidentiality. Evenifanactionforbreach of confidentialitycould be found,it isnotclearwhetheranadequateremedy isavailable under thetort.In addition, theactionfor breachofconfidentiality maynotbeadequate to remedy intrusive surveillancewhere theresultsofsuchsurveillance are notpublished or disclosed.

There are anumberof remediesthat could beused toaddressaninvasionofprivacy. As previouslyproposed by theALRC thesecould, amongother things,includedamages, an injunction, anorder requiringanapologytothe victim, acorrection order oranorderfor thedeliveryand destructionofmaterial1.

3.Shouldanycauseofaction forseriousinvasionofprivacybecreatedbystatuteorbeleftto developmentatcommonlaw?

It is theCommittee’sviewthatthe commonlawhasnot developedsufficiently to provide adequateprotectionfor individualswhosufferharmduetoseriousinvasions ofprivacy.

Asnotedin theALRC’s Report108,while somemovement hasbeenmade throughthe courts inrecognisinga cause ofactionforinvasionofprivacy,themost recentcase of relevance suggests that resolution of thequestion ofanactionable right to privacyisstill verymuchinquestion2.Thecreationofacauseofactionbystatutewouldensurea

1 AustralianLawReformCommissionReport108, p.2579

2 ALRCReport108p.2552

Page3of6

clearerandmoreconsistentstructurefortheprotectionandremedy againstserious invasionofprivacyin Australia.Itwouldalso allowconsiderationofthenecessary balance between aright to privacyand otherpublicinterestsandindividual rights.

4.Is ‘highly offensive’an appropriatestandardforacauseofactionrelatingto

seriousinvasions ofprivacy?

5.Shouldthebalancingof interestsin anyproposedcauseofactionbeintegratedinto thecauseofactionorconstituteaseparate defence?

6.Howbestcould astatutorycauseof actionrecognisethepublicinterest in freedom ofexpression?

Settingahighthreshold forestablishingaserious invasion ofprivacyisimportant to ensurethat theactionisbalancedappropriately with otherimportant interestsandrights, suchasfreedom ofexpression, thefreeflowofinformation andinvestigative journalism with alegitimate publicinterest.It shouldnotbe so highthat theactionstill leaves gaps in protectionagainstseriousinvasionsofprivacy. TheALRC’s recommended approach would seem to achieve thisbalancebyensuringanactioncanbebrought onlywhere

thereisaserious invasionofprivacy. Thatis,aninvasionfoundtobehighlyoffensive to a reasonable personofordinarysensibilities,in circumstances wheretherewas a reasonable expectationofprivacy3.

Infurther ensuring anappropriatebalance is achievedwith other publicinterests, the Privacy Committeesupportstheneedfor includinga publicinteresttest inthewordingof thecauseofaction.

7.Is theinclusion of‘intentional’ or‘reckless’ asfaultelementsforanyproposedcauseof action appropriate,orshoulditcontaindifferent requirements asto fault?

AspointedoutbytheVictorian LawReform Commission(VLRC),onecananticipate circumstanceswhere severenegligencemight lead toa seriousinvasionofprivacy. The cause ofactionshould provideforremedyfor theharmthat mayoccur where suchharm was reasonablyforeseeable. Theexample provided bytheVLRC was ofamedical practitionerleavinghighlysensitive medical records onatrain ortram.

8.Shouldanylegislationallow fortheconsiderationofotherrelevantmatters,and,ifso, is thelistofmattersproposedby theNSWLRCnecessaryandsufficient?

Nil comment.

9.Shouldanon-exhaustivelistofactivitieswhichcouldconstituteaninvasion ofprivacybeincluded in thelegislationcreatingastatutorycauseofaction, orin otherexplanatorymaterial?Ifalistwere tobe included,should anychangesbemade tothelistproposedbytheALRC?

Theinclusionofanon-exhaustive listofactivitiesthatconstitute an invasionofprivacy could provideanindication to thecourtsastothescope of theproposed cause ofaction.

3 ALRCReport108,p 2584

Page4of6

However,draftingsuchalistofprivacyinvasionsmayunnecessarily limititsapplication to emergingprivacyproblemsorharms.

On balance, thePrivacyCommitteesupportstheALRC’sproposalforanon-exhaustive listofactivities which could constitute an invasionofprivacy.

10. Whatshould beincluded asdefencestoanyproposedcauseofaction?

Theinclusionofdefences tothecauseofactionwill add to thebalancingoftheright to privacywith otherimportantinterests.Theinclusionofa defenceforactionsin thepublic interest would notbenecessaryifanyproposedcause ofactionincludedapublicinterest test, theproposal preferredbythePrivacyCommittee.Theinclusionofaproposed defenceforanact orconductasauthorisedor requiredbylawmayunnecessarily

weaken theapplication ofanycauseofactionthroughitsbroadapplication. It may include actsor conduct authorisedbylegislation orordersofa court.While acauseof

action should notprevent theproperand lawful activities ofgovernment, lawenforcement ornational security, itmustensurethat theinterestin a lawfulactivitybeproperly

weighed against the harm to arisefromaseriousinvasionofprivacy. Forexample,a court order forthedisclosureofinformationto assistintherecoveryofminordebt, should notinadvertentlyjustifyan act thatwould otherwise constitutea seriousinvasionof

privacy.

11. Shouldparticularorganisationsor typesoforganisationsbeexcludedfromtheambit of anyproposed causeof action, orshoulddefencesbeusedtorestrictitsapplication?

ThePrivacyCommitteedoes not support theexclusionofanyorganisationsorclassesof peoplefrom theambitof a proposedcauseofaction.

12. AretheremediesrecommendedbytheALRCnecessaryandsufficientfor, andappropriate to, the proposedcauseofaction?

ThePrivacyCommitteesupportstheALRC’sproposedlistof remediestobeprovided as

part ofa cause ofaction.

13. Shouldthelegislationprescribeamaximum awardofdamages fornon-economicloss,andifso, whatshould thatbe?

Nil comment.

14. Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionrequireproofofdamage?Ifso, howshould thedamagebedefined forthepurposesofthecauseofaction?

ThePrivacyCommitteesupportstheALRC’s recommendationthat claimsunder the

proposed cause ofaction beactionable withoutproofofdamage.

15. Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionalsoallow foranofferofamendsprocess?

Theoutcomestobeprovidedunder the‘offerofamends’ suggestedintheIssues Paper seemsconsistentwiththe ALRC’slistofremedies4.Given theopportunityforparties to settlecases, it isnotclear that aspecificprovisionforan‘offerofamends’isnecessary.

4 ALRCReport108,p 2579

Page5of6

16. Shouldany proposedcauseofactionbe restricted tonaturalpersons?

17. Shouldanyproposedcauseofactionbe restricted toliving persons?

Theproposedcauseofactionshould berestrictedtonatural livingpersons.

18. Withinwhatperiod, andfrom whatdate, shouldanactionforseriousinvasion ofprivacybe requiredtobe commenced?

Nil comment.

19. Whichforumsshouldhavejurisdiction tohearanddetermineclaimsmadeforserious invasions ofprivacy?

Decisionson theappropriate forum tohearanactionforseriousinvasionofprivacy should consider thenature ofinvasionandextent oftheremedyclaimed.Consideration should also begiven toensuring thecostsoflitigationarenot a barrierfor individuals seeking remedyforaseriousinvasionofprivacy.

Page6of6