Page 3206 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 11 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Perhaps I can indicate some of the recommendations we made and the reasons for them, in considering the paper the Attorney tabled on 14 August. We recommended that the Government support the points of agreement between the three State Attorneys-General on achieving a uniform defamation law to enable the ACT to initiate the changes which will be required here and to make it compatible with a draft Bill to be considered by them later on this year.
However, irrespective of the terminology of the draft State Attorneys-General Bill, the changes to the ACT law should require, firstly, that truth alone form a complete defence in defamation, except where publication is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. At present in the ACT, truth plus the public interest are requirements for a defence, and it makes it very difficult in the ACT for someone to successfully defend a defamation action. That also distances us from some of the major States. We felt that truth alone, with that proviso about publication being an unwarranted invasion of privacy, should be the sole test.
We felt that the ACT should define a limited number of essentially private matters which would prevent recourse to the defence of truth in a defamation action. We also felt that there should be provision for justification of publication of defined private matters where this can be shown to be in the public interest; in other words, listing what types of private matters might fall within the category of public interest.
Because the ACT is used for forum shopping and a lot of people come here and take out defamation actions when they should be bringing them in Melbourne or Sydney or Brisbane or wherever, we felt that the Government should investigate the possibility of and the implications arising from restricted access to the courts for defamation actions by plaintiffs who are unable to demonstrate that the ACT is their principal place of residence or the principal place of their reputation. There is no problem, if someone resides here or his main work is done in the ACT and that is his principal place of reputation, in his bringing his action here. But someone whose principal place of residence is Sydney, or whose principal place of reputation is Sydney, should bring his action in Sydney.
One of the things the Government might like to look at there - and it is covered by another recommendation - is filing fees. If someone desperately wants to bring an action here and the law is not changed to stop that, perhaps that person could pay 10 times the filing fee of a local. On that issue, we felt that the Government should review the current filing fees to determine whether they are appropriate, having regard to the costs incurred by the courts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .