But experts have raised questions about whether the laws go too far, and might catch a wide range of "common human errors" such as government or corporate employees sending an email containing private information to the wrong recipient. Natasha Maclaren-Jones heads the parliamentary committee which recommended the government create a new action for serious invasions of privacy. Credit:Daniel Munoz The recommendations, endorsed unanimously by committee members drawn from the ranks of the Coalition, Labor and the Greens, follow renewed debate about the adequacy of existing laws protecting against invasions of privacy. Fairfax Media revealed last Friday that the Sydney Roosters had sought legal advice about whether the people responsible for circulating embarrassing footage of Pearce could be sued. He was fined $125,000 and banned for eight weeks on Thursday over the controversy. Pearce's drunken antics at a private Australia Day party were filmed in secret by a fellow partygoer and sold to media outlets including Channel Nine, The Daily Telegraph and Fairfax Media.

The proposed new laws would provide certainty about the range of available remedies for invasion of privacy, including damages for emotional distress. But in each case, the courts would need to decide what constitutes "private" material and whether the invasion of privacy was "serious". The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and other bodies have long called for a new action for serious invasions of privacy, but the federal government has not supported the push. Upper house Greens MP David Shoebridge, who sat on the committee headed by the Liberals' Natasha Maclaren-Jones, said "the time for talk has ended" and "we have now had a decade of reports on privacy law reform that all recommend essentially the same thing". People seeking protection against serious invasions of privacy, including the circulation on social media of sex tapes by disgruntled former lovers, have been forced to rely on a patchwork of civil and criminal laws, which often fall short of providing adequate remedies. The committee said the new action - or tort - for serious invasions of privacy would require a person to have acted intentionally or recklessly but negligence would be sufficient in the case of governments and corporations. A public interest-style test is designed to limit incursions on freedom of expression and media reports.

University of Sydney professor Barbara McDonald, who headed the ALRC inquiry which recommended a privacy tort be enacted federally, said she welcomed the report but "still [took] the view that in a country this size we need consistent legislation across the country". A "patchwork or mishmash of laws" would be "a nightmare for the media, companies and businesses operating across state boundaries", she said. Professor McDonald also raised questions about whether it was appropriate to allow people to sue government agencies and companies for negligent invasions of privacy where other laws were available, such as breach of confidence. Under the new laws, a person would not be required to prove they suffered any damage. Professor McDonald said this could open the floodgates to class actions where "massive damages" were awarded for negligent invasions of privacy without proof of loss. It could also create a "very wide potential liability for common human errors", such as a government or corporate employee mistakenly forwarding an email to the wrong recipient.

The law and justice committee recommended the Civil and Administrative Tribunal be able to hear the cases in addition to the courts, to reduce the cost of seeking redress for serious invasions of privacy. It also said Local Court magistrates should have new powers in domestic violence cases to stop people posting "an intimate or sexually explicit image or video" of a former partner on social media, commonly known as revenge porn, or to order them to take the material down. The committee said the government should broaden the scope of the NSW Privacy Commissioner's jurisdiction to hear complaints about alleged serious invasions of privacy, and award non-financial forms of redress such as apologies and take-down orders. A spokeswoman for the Baird government thanked the committee "for their work on this important issue" and said it would "consider the recommendations within the timeframe set by the committee." A response is due by September 5.