Page 2397 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
where I would have to say that we are not minded to support the Opposition but we cannot say that any terrible consequences would follow from drawing a distinction because they can be seen to be of a different nature; although, again, you always look at the worst case and the most inoffensive case for each matter, and it may well be that a worst case scenario of mere possession could attract a reasonably sizeable penalty. The Bill does, as I say, essentially model the New South Wales provision and picks up those requirements.
The point that Mr Humphries made in relation to the exemption for unintentional listening is, on my understanding, correct. He has correctly pointed out that the Bill is intended to exempt from its operations the mere twiddling of the dial on an FM radio or a scanner and the unintentional picking up of a conversation, but could operate to create an offence if a person, having unintentionally stumbled across a conversation, decided to spend the rest of the evening listening to the private conversation. The fundamental principle that privacy is to be protected is covered by the Bill, but there is an obvious exemption for the unintentional picking up. If a person decided to persist in listening they could fall foul of the Bill. That same exemption and that same phrasing has been used in the New South Wales legislation and our advice is that that has not caused any problems.
Essentially, this Bill will operate to prevent persons who may be involved in the private investigation industry from using taps or bugs. They are a group who probably, at the moment, are engaged in such activities. Recently there was an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald's Saturday magazine. I tend to read that on a Saturday if I have time. This article was focusing on a documentary made about the private inquiry industry in New South Wales. They were boasting of their use of this type of equipment, even though it is illegal in New South Wales; so one would assume that if they are operating in the ACT they would also use such devices. They will now have to realise that they may be subject to the law.
Mr Humphries also mentioned that a number of media outlets in Britain have made great play of the fact that they are publishing and broadcasting what are claimed to be private telephone conversations, and he correctly pointed out that that would be illegal under this legislation. He noted that he did not see any problem with that, and nor do I. Freedom of the press is a fine thing, but it has to operate within the same freedoms that are available to everybody else. There is no particular licence for the press. If we are saying as a society, as we seem to be saying on a bipartisan basis, that it is not acceptable to clandestinely eavesdrop on private conversations, that provision will apply to the media, the same as it will apply to private individuals. Fortunately, in Australia, the use of listening devices by media outlets, even the more sensational style of media outlet, which we fortunately do not have in this Territory, has not been a major problem.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to the Assembly. It is a significant milestone in protecting a fundamental right of privacy which for too long has been denied the ACT community.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .