Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The publication of pictures is a sensitive issue. However, the media needs to be careful of context. There were complaints the media were prevented from photographing witnesses attending court to give evidence in a certain high profile trial in the recent past. The interest at that time clearly went beyond the public interest to a somewhat prurient interest. Care is always required in the publication of photographs. Defamation may occur. Care is also needed in regard to children. Media rarely consider the impact on children of a family when stories are written which are intended to create scandal but are really essentially about the private lives of individuals and are not matters of major public interest.

I am of the view that the eventual outcome of the Leveson inquiry in the UK may contain important lessons for the future regulation and conduct of the media in regard to the violation of privacy. We share many of the same media outlets and influences, but we would hope none of the significant defects and behaviour involved, as revealed in Leveson.

We have seen some shocking revelations as to the methods used by media to obtain information about private citizens, very little involving the public interest, but solely for commercial gain. Similar outrages in this jurisdiction, and I am sure Senators would agree, would merit and receive a swift legislative response. Abuse of the necessary freedoms afforded to the media in a democracy is a serious matter.

I share many of the views expressed by Senators today. In opposing the Bill proposed by Senator Norris, and I think Senators Quinn and Barrett also have their names on the Bill, I do not oppose the substance of the proposal, rather its timing. I will continue to review the provisions contained in the Privacy Bill 2006, taking into account developments in the law of privacy in our courts and elsewhere, with a view to necessary amendments to improve the Bill should the Bill prove necessary. I recognise that citizens justifiably worry about intrusions upon their privacy and that the potential for unjustified intrusion into personal lives is now unparalleled. I recognise that, ultimately, it may be preferable to legislate for privacy rather than simply leave the matter to develop through case law. The final content of this legislation, should it be required, will be a matter for Government next year. In addressing this issue we should also never, in any respect, undervalue the central role played by the media, be it the press, print media or broadcast media, in our parliamentary democracy and their capacity, through good journalism, to properly hold those to account who should be held to account, and in particular those who hold public office, in circumstances in which there are allegations justifiably made of misconduct. We have a public interest in a free press but we also have a public interest in protecting an individual's privacy from unnecessary intrusion in circumstances in which such intrusion is entirely unwarranted.