Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2710 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

There has been some debate in the broader community. Members will be aware that there was a forum hosted by the Press Council in the ACT, which I spoke at and others spoke at, to discuss the legislation. It is a matter of some significant comment and it is a matter which I believe the Assembly will need to come to grips with in a meaningful way in the space of the next 12 months.

Mr Speaker, I think that a bill of this magnitude deserves to be treated carefully and considered carefully and to be the subject of public debate and consultation. I have to point out, of course, that the previous versions of this legislation-discussion papers and so on which led to the Defamation Bill-were, in fact, provided to the community and were the subject of some debate over the last two or three years.

In fact, the issue of defamation law reform has been on the table in the ACT for at least 10 years. Members might also be aware that there has been an even longer debate at the national level about the direction of defamation reform, culminating a couple of years ago in a decision by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to remove the item from its agenda on the basis that some 20 years of debate on reforming the law of defamation had failed to reach any substantial conclusion about the direction such reform should take.

That is a matter of sadness, Mr Speaker. I think that it is appropriate in a country like Australia where much of the media is national in focus for there to be a national set of laws on defamation, so that what one says in Sydney should have the same consequences when it is reported in Hobart, Perth, Canberra or Darwin. That is not to be, at least not in the immediate future, because of the disagreement between different jurisdictions in Australia about this issue.

I think therefore that, in the absence of uniform defamation laws in this country, we should have excellent defamation laws in this territory. It is my hope that what is before the Assembly is legislation that fits that requirement. However, it is a matter which does need further ventilation, if only to allow members of this place a chance to be able to assess the direction that the reforms take. For that reason, I have moved that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, as the appropriate standing committee of the Assembly, to consider the issues that the bill gives rise to.

The motion makes reference to a couple of matters which are central to the bill's direction: the question of the defence of truth, for example, and the issue of a negligence-based defence to a claim of defamation. Mr Speaker, those are significant issues which will require some careful thought on the part of the justice committee, but I believe that it is a matter which is appropriately now before that committee so that we can advance this issue.

I hope that we can return the issue to the Assembly in the first half of next year. It is certainly the government's intention that the matter be considered by the Assembly before the next election. Defamation reform has been on the agenda for a very long time and I have to express a strong personal desire not to see the issue simply lapse at the time of the next election because perhaps we find it difficult to make a decision about some of these significant issues.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .