Page 2802 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
perception that the ACT provides particular advantages to plaintiffs. The most tenuous connection is sometimes used to found an action in the ACT rather than the place where a paper or broadcast was originally made. What exacerbates the problem in the ACT is not that we have particularly objectionable or faulty defamation laws but that our present law is different from that of the other States and thus draws litigants like a magnet. Recently the Law Society of the ACT has recommended that the ACT reconsider the moves that are being made towards uniformity by the eastern States.
At the June 1990 Alice Springs meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Ministers agreed that the question of uniform defamation laws should be reopened. This is an issue that goes way back to the early 1970s and has been on the agenda of SCAG and various bodies since that time. This exercise has been coordinated directly by the Attorneys-General of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, and rather more dramatic progress has been made in the last couple of years than in the entire period since this issue was first on the agenda. At meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and at various other times they have reported publicly on their progress.
To date the New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland Attorneys-General have issued a number of joint discussion papers on the reform of defamation law. The exercise has made significant progress towards establishing a single simple defence of justification, shorter limitation periods, court-recommended corrections, protections for innocent publication and other measures to encourage media responsibility. Just recently the eastern States exercise has picked up momentum and appears to have some real chance of success in developing a uniform law. I do not think that the ACT should ignore this window of opportunity for closer involvement in this eastern States reform process.
Members will be interested to know that the eastern States proposals are not dissimilar to those developed so far by the Community Law Reform Committee, which is also considering the issue of defamation law reform. I have discussed the possibility of the ACT moving closer to the eastern States exercise with the chairperson of the Community Law Reform Committee, former Judge Kelly. Mr Kelly has advised me that the committee has come to the view that, whilst all the details of the eastern States proposals have not been clarified, the ACT would be well served by becoming more involved with the eastern States exercise.
He has also advised me that the effort of the committee was already directed to areas of reform in the defamation area not affected by the eastern States exercise, namely, consideration of procedural reform and consideration of a new tort of privacy. The committee is considering a model
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .