TITLE: Media Defendants Performing Fourth Estate Functions Deserve Better Protection From Australian Defamation Law SUBMISSION BY: Dr Joseph M Fernandez Associate Professor School of Media, Creative Arts and Social Inquiry Curtin University, Western Australia On The Review of Model Defamation Provisions SUBMITTED TO: Justice Strategy and Policy Division NSW Department of Justice GPO Box 31 Sydney New South Wales 2001 AUSTRALIA SUBMITTED ON: 30 April 2019 via email:
[email protected] AUTHOR CONTACT: 1 Introduction Australia, and Sydney in particular, has often been disparagingly referred to as the defamation capital of the world. Judge Judith Gibson, Defamation List judge of the District Court of New South Wales, noted that such references to Australian defamation law can be traced to as early as 1990 and asked “what damage is done to the standing of the Australian legal system if we continue to be derided” in this way (Gibson, 2019). The chorus of voices lamenting the state of Australian defamation law includes journalism academic and author, Louisa Lim, writing in the The New York Times about “how badly broken Australia’s defamation laws are” (Lim, 2019). Such sentiments are reflected elsewhere – including by Australian media organisation groupings, law reform advocates, judges and lawyers. Almost a century ago Street ACJ, in explaining the rationale for treating the truth defence in defamation law as a complete defence, referred to the “proper level” for a person’s reputation thus: [A]s the object of civil proceedings is to clear the character of the plaintiff, no wrong is done to him by telling the truth about him.