Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Reference should be made to an apology being timely and prominent. The Minister is correct with regard to the begrudging nature of many of the apologies which appear in newspapers. They are often late and small, and printed in a little read part of the newspaper, whereas they should be in a prominent position. The more time that passes before a defamatory article is corrected, the more damage it can do to an individual's reputation. There should be an onus on a newspaper to correct reports immediately on becoming aware they are untrue. It should be stitched into the legislation that the apology is printed on the same page as the offending article. To be honest, I would prefer all apologies to be printed on the front page because there is nothing in this legislation to deal with serial offenders. Newspapers which repeatedly go to the wire in terms of defamatory articles will be treated in the same way on a case-by-case basis as a newspaper which offends for the first time. That is wrong because sanctions are provided in all other legislation for repeat or serial transgressions.

I welcome the provision that apologies are not admissible in civil proceedings as evidence of liability as a significant and justified move in the favour of the press industry. Given that provision, however, there should be no reservations on the part of newspapers about taking a generous approach to issuing apologies. I hope the Minister will consider a reference to timely and prominent apologies, although I am not sure about imposing a 14-day deadline. If the Bill required apologies to be printed on the front page, the deterrent effect on circulation would give newspapers an incentive to adhere to the code of practice to which Senator Maurice referred. We need to stiffen the legislation to ensure compliance with proper standards and codes of ethics.