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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (1 May) . . Page.. 1268 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

I reject the committee's report and I base this rejection on the following grounds. The first point relates to the common law formulation of the defence of truth. The committee conceded to the arguments of members of the legal profession rejecting the government's proposal that truth alone should be a defence. In part it seems to have done so in the wrong belief that mud-raking is rife in jurisdictions where truth alone exists. Examples are Victoria and the United Kingdom, where mud-raking is rife. I urge the government to retain this aspect of the bill. The existing qualifications to the law add to the undesirable complexity of the law, and, importantly, they add additional costs to defamation proceedings.

Secondly, should the ACT adopt a defence based on negligence? The committee has not been able to make up its mind on this issue. It concluded that there was merit on both sides of the argument, and thus it would not like to see the provision abandoned. It suggests that the provision be reworded, but makes no suggestion about how this might be achieved. Instead, the committee has suggested that the government engage in further discussion, even though defamation law has been the subject of different consultative processes since the early years of self-government. I urge the government to carefully examine the committee's report with a view to simplifying the provisions. Given the exhaustive consultation processes already undertaken by the ACT Law Reform Commission, the government, and now the committee, I am not persuaded that further delay is in anyone's interest.

Finally, should a victim be able to claim compensation for general damage done to a victim's reputation in the offer of amends process? I am disappointed by the committee's recommendation here, Mr Speaker. I do not think the committee members took the time to understand the issue in question here. Their comments seem directed to the general issue of damages, which is really not in question.

I urge the government to retain incentives to encourage the early resolution of disputes. This aspect of the government's bill is essential to meet the objective, repeated in the preface to the report, of achieving early intervention and preventative measures to avoid long-term damage.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I recommend that the government bring forward a revised bill as soon as possible for debate. This process has dragged on for far too long. The interests of people in the ACT are not served by further delays.

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move that my dissenting report be attached to the committee's report.

Leave granted.

MR HIRD: I thank members. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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