Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Uniform defamation laws are long overdue but will face stiff opposition

By Crispin Hull - posted Tuesday, 23 March 2004


The ACT should have the most objection to the Ruddock proposals. Under changes steered through by Gary Humphries when he was Attorney-General, the ACT has the most pro-free-speech defamation laws in Australia – and the sky has not fallen in. In an ideal world the ACT’s laws would be the model. But given politicians are unlikely to give anything to the media this is a hopeless cause. Nonetheless, the Ruddock plan picks up at least some of the ACT reforms.

ACT media has less to lose with the Ruddock proposal than it would seem. Any leeway given by liberal ACT laws can be simply counter-acted by plaintiffs taking action in NSW.

With any luck the states and territories will object like crazy and needle the Commonwealth into doing what it should have done in 1973: passed a uniform law that would cover all broadcast and corporate media and all of their individual employees and contractors (very important), leaving it open to the states to apply it for all cases.

Advertisement

And with any luck, when the Bill reaches the Senate, the detail can be negotiated more in favour of freedom of speech.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

This article was first published in The Canberra Times on 19 March 2004.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Crispin Hull is a former editor of The Canberra Times, admitted as a barrister and solicitor in the ACT and author of The High Court 1903-2003 (The Law Book Company). He teaches journalism at the University of Canberra and is chair of Barnardos Australia, the children’s charity. His website is here: www.crispinhullcom.au.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Crispin Hull
Related Links
Defamation discussion paper
Federal Attorney-General's Department
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy