Page 4377 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
range of procedural reforms that are necessary to streamline defamation proceedings. It is procedural difficulties that often cause lengthy delays and high costs in defamation proceedings. Again, the Community Law Reform Committee is examining in greater detail this matter of rules of court. The draft Bill does not identify the full range of protected documents, as this is properly a matter for decision by each individual jurisdiction. Again, I have asked the Community Law Reform Committee to consider that matter in greater detail.
We believe that the States and Territories should adopt a uniform approach to defamation law. Defamation does not stop at State or Territory borders, nor does publication in either the printed or the electronic media. Justice is not served by having half a dozen different laws that might apply to the one publication or broadcast. This draft legislation represents an important step in this direction, and I commend it to members. I present the following papers:
Defamation Law Reform -
Ministerial statement, 19 November 1991
Proposed Uniform Defamation Law - Draft Bill.
I move:
That the Assembly takes note of the papers.
MR COLLAERY (3.14): I rise to make some brief comments on the matter. As I have informed the house previously, the Alliance Government did not join the eastern States in this process, firstly, because we were not invited; and, secondly, because, even if we had managed to badger our way onto that group, I was of the view - and I remain of that view - that the ACT had a particular opportunity to attend to its rules of court and develop a more imaginative proposal.
I am sustained in that view by the leader in the Canberra Times of 18 November 1991. This would have been written by one of two journalists - the editor or the deputy editor or both - who are probably the most informed media commentators on defamation law reform in this country. They state that they are pleased that finally there has been a move, but they say:
It would be foolish to pretend that the proposals in the Bill bring fundamental change to the law; indeed, most of the changes are fairly minor.
They acknowledge the issues that my colleague Mr Connolly referred to. I regret that he used the expression, "It was regrettable that the Alliance Government did not join it". I have already expressed the view that our Government could afford to be more innovative and reformist in defamation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .