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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1266 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

legislation in place, nor in fact do we have a privacy commissioner. Further, the understanding of the true facts of a matter can easily change from day to day.

The second proposal contains the adoption of a new defence in a defamation action based on the absence of negligence. At present, a plaintiff needs only to prove that material was published to launch a successful defamation action, not that there was necessarily an intention of publishing the information with malice. This is a significant reform, one that would lead the nation.

The arguments in support of this reform centred on such a change promoting more responsible journalism, as a journalist's conduct would be in the spotlight to a far greater degree. A further argument that held merit was that the current situation prevented easy access to justice. As the bar of proof is currently so low for a plaintiff, as they only have to prove the information was published, media organisations were prepared to put up a strong defence bent on draining the financial resources of the plaintiff. Most plaintiffs are, therefore, discouraged from initiating a defamation action, with most of those who do go ahead giving up during the process. A change to just proving negligence should ensure that a media organisation was encouraged to conduct itself responsibly and should prevent expensive drawn out litigation.

The third proposal in the bill is a mechanism for providing an uncomplicated and quick system of righting the wrong where a person has been defamed. Under this system, an offer of amends based on corrections and apologies could be made that, if considered reasonable, had to be accepted by the plaintiff. This would provide for prompt and accurate correction in place of a protracted adversarial dispute. It would also mean that monetary compensation for defamation would also become non-existent beyond the reimbursement of expenses. In general terms, media representatives enthusiastically supported each of these reforms-

Mr Hargreaves: Surprise, surprise!

MR OSBORNE: "Surprise, surprise," Mr Hargreaves interjects. Legal representatives just as enthusiastically opposed them. The two defamation plaintiffs sided with the lawyers in opposition. The committee was faced with the challenge of trying to reconcile the positions of the two opposing positions, the media versus the lawyers, where both sides, and particularly the lawyers, did not want to concede any ground.

In the end, the committee decided it could not support the first two proposals in their current form. The government's proposals would give the media too much power at the expense of defamation victims. While defamation plaintiffs are often thought of as well-paid, powerful public figures, this is not necessarily true. The recent case where a Maitland woman's photograph was mistakenly portrayed as someone who murdered her four children demonstrates that misrepresentation by the media can happen to ordinary people and have a devastating effect on their lives.

The media have an important role to play in society; they inform the people of events and bring about public debate on matters. However, in this role they have a great responsibility. Because information has been reported, people sometimes assume it to be true and believe it to be important. Mr Hull lamented to the committee that the current law provided an atmosphere of "publish at your peril" because the law presumed that

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