Ms Kate Mulkerrins:

As we spoke about earlier, what is needed is a continuum of proofs of conduct, beyond the warning that applies within the zone, that the conduct is intimidatory in nature or where a reasonable person looking at the conduct would say the purpose of the filming or photography, potentially after other actions as well, is to chill the individual seeking to access lawful services. As the Senator said, the power of seizure allows that evidence to be taken. From a personal viewpoint, in addition to the question of evidence being lost, it has the most chilling effect if such material is then uploaded to social media and other platforms. The comfort, for want of a better word, afforded by the gathering of that evidential material is of great significance and is balanced and proportionate in respect of the rights of the individuals concerned. Moreover, much of this activity does not happen in a public place but may be filmed from a public place. Again, we run into complexities about whether there is a right to privacy. In the intimidatory context we are discussing, the Bill can introduce that further protection of privacy.