If Wills and Kate want privacy, they should holiday in Tasmania like Princess Mary does, where law reform has blurred the lines between public and private.

What would Mary do…

Woman’s Day have published the controversial shots of Kate’s baby bump, taken on a beach in Mustique. Kate and Wills were at first outraged last year by a long lenses paparazzi who shot into their secluded villa in Southern France, capturing Kate topless.

As pointed out by the editor of Woman’s Day, Fiona Connolly, who reportedly paid $150,000 for the photos, Kate was on a public beach, albeit one that did cost $30,000 a week and bills itself as ‘the world’s finest private island retreat’.

It was also claimed that the photographer was not a paparazzi but an opportunistic fellow guest at the hotel. The money must have helped pay a hefty hotel bill.

A Royal spokesperson said in response to news of the pictures: “This is a clear breach of the couple’s right to privacy.”

However, you live and learn. As Mary could explain, if Kate and Wills had holidayed on that other private island, Tasmania, both the topless villa outrage and the island beach would seem to breach Tasmania’s reformed Police Offenses Act, which states it’s illegal to visually record a person in circumstances where a reasonable person would expect to be afforded privacy and then distribute the images.

Take the experience of the media in 2010, when Mary, pregnant with twins, came home on a ‘private’ visit to see her sister in Hobart. Previously it was ok to photograph the princess at the home, as long as the photographer didn’t set foot on the property. Now, as the media were warned by the police at the time, the act of taking the photo was an intrusion in itself, no matter where they stood.

When the 2007 amendments were made, it was reported that former police minister David Llewellyn told State Parliament they were to prohibit “voyeuristic recordings or photographs by deviant or unscrupulous people”.  But as the Mercury further reported in 2010, a police officer concurred that the laws were great for Mary.  The Australian princess was reportedly thrilled by the change.

So with this in mind, where could Kate and Wills holiday in Tasmania? Thoughts are David Walsh’s MONA and its villas, Cradle Mountain Lodge and Freycinet. They could have a family getaway with Mary and (Prince) Fred with all the kids. It would be more private – and cheaper.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEDT.

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • iansand says:

      06:18am | 19/02/13

      Queenstown.  No trees for the paparazzi to hide behind.

    • Matt says:

      12:07pm | 19/02/13

      Clearly you’ve never been to Queenstown..

    • gof says:

      06:42am | 19/02/13

      Can the leader of the opposition move there as well. We need all the privacy he can get for the next 7 months!

    • Hank says:

      07:22am | 19/02/13

      Good idea gof.  He might as well be a recluse for 7 months while the ALP continues to implode on itself then he can come back as our next PM and move our nation to a new golden era!

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:00am | 19/02/13

      Is this it for the next 6 months? Every article gets an Anti Tony plug? FFS

    • Rose says:

      09:11am | 19/02/13

      There’s always some one stupid enough to add an anti Abbott or anti Gillard comment, regardless of what the article is about.
      Those people should really get out more and develop other interests!

    • gof says:

      10:59am | 19/02/13

      #Rose ,
      I am trying to remove political debate from these apolitical discussions!
      I have offered a suggestion based on the topic of how to alleviate this. It is simple, if Mr. Abbott goes to Tasmania with all of his ministers for 6 months then there will be no need to discuss his abysmal performance, you know the out of sight out of mind. So why don’t you stop being silly, grow up and contribute a meaningful post…Okay!

    • Rose says:

      01:10pm | 19/02/13

      ....or, you could go to Tasmania and remove yourself from political discussion

    • gof says:

      01:51pm | 19/02/13

      #Rose ,
      But then there would be no bipartisan reporting of the facts! I am needed the opposition leader is not!

    • Ags says:

      05:41pm | 19/02/13

      WTF you are talking about Tony Abbott everywhere on the web It’s almost as if you were trying to advance his public status. Go away and get a real job

    • ramases says:

      06:51am | 19/02/13

      Lets get this right, this priveledged couple are paid from the public purse and as such are public property and therefore shouldn’t be afforded any right to privacy. They put themselves out there when it suits them or the Royal Family and then expects people to switch off when they want a moment alone, give me a break.
        They live and die by publicity as revealed with the enormous interest in a certain woman having a baby, something that millions of women do every day but for some reason this is special.
        Why, because it will be another bludger on the public purse with all it ever wants and needs paid for by those who by a freak of nature weren’t born into this particular family.
        They want privacy, renounce their claims to whatever, buy a home with their own money earned through their own hard work and live the life of an ordinary person instead of this supposed priveledged life they expect daily.      Don’t like that idea, then put up with their every waking moment being put out there for all to see if people are really interested.
        As for going to Tassie, okay as long as we the tax payer aren’t expected to pick up the bill for these freeloaders as usual.

    • marley says:

      07:14am | 19/02/13

      @Rameses - let’s indeed get this right.  In the UK, this couple is paid for by the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is to say Charles’ personal property, not from the public purse.

    • R White says:

      07:37am | 19/02/13

      “This priveledged couple are paid from the public purse”

      No, in fact they are not. Not paid one cent.

      Yes, the Royal Family is privileged. Yes, they are rich. Yes, they perform a wide range of official, ceremonial and public duties in the UK and in the Commonwealth. 

      Yes, the Monarch and the UK Parliament have made sensible, documented, readily found arrangements that balance the costs of the official and public duties of the Royal Family vs the personal wealth of the Queen and her immediate family. 

      Here they are:

      “The Prince of Wales receives the income of the Duchy of Cornwall to meet expenditure incurred by the Household of The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, the Household of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.”

      So, apart from his RAF career, as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Prince William and Catherine do perform a range public duties,  but they do not get a bean from the Civil List. Not a cracker. Not a brass razoo. They get an allowance from his father’s Estate.

      Baby another bludger? You’re all class, Ramases, and all flat wrong.

      Cheers, from a republican Australian.

    • Michael J says:

      08:40am | 19/02/13

      I was in your boat for awhile but then I saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw) . While it is a given you can’t trust everything on the internet, this seems reasonably well researched.

    • ramases says:

      08:46am | 19/02/13

      And how pray tell did Charles get the Dutchy of Cornwell, did he buy it or was this another largess from the people or did his ancestors take it by force.
        I really don’t care who or what pays them as every time they make a move either here or overseas the public is the one who picks up the tab and why may I ask.
        The Royal family has no relevance in today’s society except as a curiosity and a poor one at that and as an entertainment for those who still cling to the belief that one family is better than the rest.
        The sooner this antiquated system of feudal overlording is abolished the better and we can have a country free from this kowtowing to people who put themselves above everybody else.

    • marley says:

      09:25am | 19/02/13

      @ramases - the Duchy of Cornwall was established by Edward III in 1337.  Whether Edward seized it, bought it, or did a bit of both, I don’t know.  But it certainly isn’t a gift of the modern-day taxpayer.

      Yes, visits by royalty cost the taxpayer money. So do visits by the Pope and Oprah Winfrey.

    • ramases says:

      02:00pm | 19/02/13

      marley, good point but I ask why should our good money be spent on people who can afford to pay for it themselves.
        So what your saying is that although Edward III aquired it somehow it is not the publics now, why. Who pays for the upkeep of the palaces that are occupied by the Royals, who pays for the 24/7 guards that the Royals have to have, the Royals, I think not.
        Even the poms themselves seem to be at sixes and sevens about the amount of money that is being spent on this archaic Royal family tradition.

    • Ally says:

      02:35pm | 19/02/13

      Ramses - as I understand it the Royals’ upkeep (including staff and upkeep of residences) comes from the Civil List (now the Sovereign Grant). The money from this comes from income generated by the Crown Estate - in other words all of the property that had previously been the property of the sovereign but is now held in trust.

      Besides that, the Duchy of Lancaster provides income for the sovereign for things not covered by the civil list.

    • marley says:

      02:51pm | 19/02/13

      @ramases - if Edward III acquired the Duchy, and it’s stayed in family hands ever since, I’m not quite sure where the public has a say in it. I don’t think the public should have a say in my house and personal assets, so why the royal family’s?

      And as I understand it, the Duchy gets no public funding.  It generates income from the properties and farms it holds. 

      The larger issue of the entire royal family is a bit different, but William is living off his dad’s property income.

    • Wee Willi says:

      07:55am | 19/02/13

      Kate who?

    • gobsmack says:

      08:22am | 19/02/13

      Willy would have to bone up on the map of Tassie.

    • Matt says:

      10:04am | 19/02/13

      You win the Internet today.

    • Chris on the Coast says:

      08:56am | 19/02/13

      Maybe Juliar should head for the Tassie hills - if she can’t be found, KRudd can’t challenge - or can he ?  She can run a ‘Government-in-Exile- Vichy style from one of the last two Labor-Green outposts in Australia.

    • Rose says:

      09:37am | 19/02/13

      These Tasmanian laws seem pretty good to me. If some one has a reasonable expectation of privacy, that should be respected. There is no public benefit from the publishing of paparazzi shots so I don’t see the need to protect their right to stalk people, royalty, celebrity or otherwise.
      Make sure there are no unintended hiccups first, but bring the laws in Australia wide!!

    • Beiha Yanez says:

      03:52pm | 19/02/13

      The Duchess and her hubby should go to Charters Towers, far north QLD. Takes ages to get there and I don’t think the Paparazzi would like the cane toads and wild bush pigs everywhere. She can have a pint and a dance with the hubby at The White Horse and dine on some pasta at Henry’s and go catch a flick at the local cinema. They can also go to the rodeo or camping near the Burdekin River.

    • Ben says:

      05:17pm | 19/02/13

      It still cracks me up that someone from the European royalty - having belatedly recognised the perils of a shallow gene pool - chose an outsider from, of all places, Tasmania.

    • W J Craig (Mrs) says:

      05:53pm | 19/02/13

      If Katie values her privacy as much as you say then maybe she should have been content to remain just plain Kate Middleton & married another commoner. lets’ face it, who are these Mountbatten-Windsors? Commoners who have benefited from their criminal , land & wealth grabbing forebears.
      Go back to work, Katie, you are no different to millions of other women - pregnant or not.


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter