is tight, so...so it is happening. Peter Bartlett : People know what they should be doing and what they shouldn't be doing, and simply having some law sitting there is not going to make it any different. That is simplistic. The law of defamation acts as a break on poor reporting, inadequate research and more eggregious behaviour.  It does not guarantee good behaviour.  Nor should it.  Having a protection of privacy on the statute books may give cause for pause. But that is not the point.  If there is a right that should be protected then that right should have some real enforcement ability.  If people do not change their behaviour, fine. let them pay the price for infringing.  This is hardly radical policy discussion. People know that if they do have a photograph of a sexual relationship with their ex-partner, it should not be posted. But an injunction and damages award will go a lot further in reminding a malefactor that there is a price for infringing another's right to privacy. Damien Carrick : Finally, a separate question from whether or not to introduce a right to privacy is whether or not we should overhaul the way our media is regulated, and there, of course, is currently debate taking place in both Australia and in the UK where they've got the Lord Leveson Inquiry into the phone hacking debacle, and we've got the Finkelstein inquiry here, which recommended a statutory regulation of the press for the first time. Briefly,