Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock’s plans to develop a draft bill for a nationally consistent defamation law is “good in theory but still needs further consultation” to be effective, according to Phillips Fox. Partner Richard Potter told Sunrise Exchange News Mr Ruddock’s proposals – which have been developed without consultation – will benefit the insurance industry and consumers, but only if more consultation takes place.

He says the Government “still has a long way to go” with defamation law, and simply forcing the federal legislation out without state and territory agreement will only complicate matters. If the states and territories don’t agree and a federal defamation law is introduced, companies would have to adhere to federal law and individuals would abide by the laws of their state.

“In some ways it would defeat the purpose of the law if two-thirds of defamation law was governed by a federal statute and the remaining third was governed by existing state law,” Mr Potter said. “The Attorney-General has not done anything radical, but seems to have mixed and matched laws from different states.”

He says the proposed changes as they stand “may well make defamation law much worse”, with insurers having to be familiar with jurisdictions in each state as well as at the federal level. “Costs would also most likely increase.”

Mr Ruddock is calling for public submissions until April 16.