The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Yes. I'm not suggesting a First Amendment -- I think that would be a little bit presumptuous of me -- but I am suggesting a mechanism whereby it would not be a simple matter of political expedience to put in a "not" or change a subprovision of an Act, which is what concerned you.

Now, what I think of the concern is another matter, but I'm anxious to address it, because if you're thinking it, other people will be thinking it as well, and I am anxious to create a system that actually does what it says on the tin: encourages all that is good about the press, discouraging all that you recognise ought to be discouraged, and also provides a mechanism, perhaps, for the very much speedier resolution of those arguments that require timeous solutions. It is, to some extent, a failure of the system, however speedy, that it took Mr Hislop some months to overturn an interim injunction that was granted after the original injunction had been refused but pending appeal. That's a problem. But I can't simply promote privacy or press interest litigation above all the other types of action that are being pursued in court because everybody else would say, "Well, me too", and legitimately. That's the pressure that we're all under.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech