---
title: "Build a defamation-defences checklist from the publication and the state Act"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/build-a-defences-checklist-from-the-publication-and-the-file/australia"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A33-T1-R4-AU"
practice_area: "Defamation & Media Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["AU"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Build a defamation-defences checklist from the publication and the state Act

> List truth, honest opinion, privilege, public-interest and contextual-truth defences against the file facts, with missing evidence, under the state Act the lawyer named.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/build-a-defences-checklist-from-the-publication-and-the-file/australia  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Defamation & Media Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | List truth, honest opinion, privilege, public-interest and contextual-truth defences against the file facts, with missing evidence, under the state Act the lawyer named. |
| What the lawyer must review | Confirm Stage 2 status: digital-intermediary defence in NSW, ACT and Vic Check Qld (enacted late 2025) commencement; note SA absent as at mid-2026 Check the state Act's exact elements Check the Part B police-report immunity Citator-check every case |
| Written for | Australia |
| Applies to | [Build a defences checklist from the publication and the file](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/build-a-defences-checklist-from-the-publication-and-the-file.md) |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes organising research leads and preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
3. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
4. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
5. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
6. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*