Printers and Newspapers Act 1984

The Act defines “paper” very broadly - it includes a book, periodical, pamphlet, handbill, sheet of letterpress and paper of any description - but then carves out numerous exceptions: papers printed or published by the Government Printer in the course of duty; matter of a commercial nature only; impressions from an engraving not intended for publication; papers relating to auction or property sale; banknotes, bills of exchange, promissory notes; bonds or other securities for payment; bills of lading, insurance policies, powers of attorney, deeds or agreements; receipts for money or goods; court documents (writs, summonses, complaints, plaints, warrants); and any paper declared by the Minister not to be a paper for the purposes of the Act. This list of exclusions is exhaustive and significant: a commercial flyer with only product prices, for instance, might fall within “matter of a commercial nature only” and be excluded, but a flyer with editorial content or opinion would not.

“Newspaper” is defined more narrowly: it must contain public news, reports of occurrences, or remarks or observations on public news, occurrences or political matters; be printed for sale or gratuitous distribution; and be published periodically or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding 36 days. Crucially, a paper printed or published by the authority of a department or statutory corporation is not a newspaper - meaning government newsletters, even if periodic and news‑like, are not subject to the newspaper provisions.

The definition of “printer” is central: for a newspaper, the printer is “the person having the management and control of a printing press by which the newspaper is printed”. Note that this is not necessarily the owner or the operator - it is the person with management and control. For non‑newspaper papers, the Act uses the general word “printer” without a dedicated definition, but section 4 requires it to be the person who prints for publication or dispersal.

“Printing press” is defined as a machine or contrivance with which a newspaper is printed, including types, blocks, plates, stencils and lithographic stones used with it - but it excludes any machine or contrivance that is property of the Territory, and also excludes a “duplicating machine”. Duplicating machine itself is defined as not including an offset duplicating machine. This creates a three‑tier: an offset duplicating machine is not a duplicating machine, so it is not excluded from the definition of printing press and thus its use for a newspaper would engage the Act; a non‑offset duplicating machine (e.g., a spirit duplicator or mimeograph) is excluded, so newspapers printed with such machines are not subject to the printer obligations of section 6 (though section 4 may still apply if the output is a paper other than a newspaper). This technological carve‑out reflects the era of the original 1928 Ordinance and may be an anachronism.

“Publisher” in relation to a newspaper means the proprietor or other person who arranges for distribution from the place where it is printed. “Proprietor” is the person having management or control of the newspaper. These definitions overlap but are distinct: a printer who also arranges distribution is both, but the Act separates the duties.

“Executive officer” for the liability provision in section 10 means a director or other person concerned with, or taking part in, the management of a body corporate. This is wide enough to include de facto managers and officers, not just those formally appointed.

The concept of “declared provision” in section 10 currently only covers sections 4(1) and 4(2) (the printing name requirements for non‑newspaper papers), but the definition allows regulations to prescribe additional provisions. As at the last amendment this power has not been exercised. This means executive officer liability under section 10 does not yet apply to breaches of sections 5, 6, 9, or 11(2). Practitioners should monitor any regulatory expansion.

The Act directly affects any person or entity that prints papers for publication or dispersal within the Northern Territory, whether for profit, gratis, or in expectation of hire. This includes commercial printers, nonprofit organisations, political campaigners, churches, community groups, and individuals who print flyers, pamphlets, booklets, or handbills for distribution. The obligation under section 4(1) applies even if the paper is given away free, and the record‑keeping duty under section 5 applies only if the printing is “for or in the expectation of hire, gain or profit” - thus a purely charitable non‑commercial print run may be exempt from the six‑month record‑keeping requirement but still must bear the printer’s name and address.

Newspaper publishers and printers are separately affected by sections 6 and 8. A newspaper printer must ensure both the printer’s and publisher’s names and addresses appear on each copy. The publisher must ensure their name is furnished to the printer for this purpose. The publisher also faces potential libel discovery obligations under section 8, which can be invoked by a plaintiff before a defamation action is even fully pleaded.

Bodies corporate engaged in printing face additional exposure: section 4(2) requires a body corporate to print the body’s name (or abbreviation), the name of the person in charge of its printing business, and the business address, rather than just the printer’s personal name. Moreover, section 10 imposes personal criminal liability on executive officers of a body corporate if the body commits an offence under a declared provision (currently sections 4(1) and (2)). This means directors, managers, and others who take part in management can be fined the same maximum penalty as an individual for the breach (1.7 penalty units) even if they did not personally print the paper, unless they can establish a defence.

The Minister is affected through the exemption power in section 11 and the authorisation power in section 12. The Minister may exempt a paper or class of paper from any Act requirement, on terms, by Gazette notice. The Minister also may authorise in writing a person to institute proceedings for offences; only authorised persons may bring a prosecution. This gives the executive branch gatekeeping control over enforcement.

Courts and tribunals are affected by section 7, which forces them to accept printed names as prima facie evidence of the identity of the printer, commissioner, or publisher. This shifts the evidentiary burden in any proceeding (civil or criminal) involving a paper that bears a printed name. In practice, this may ease enforcement of the Act as well as assist in defamation or contempt matters.

Members of the public who receive papers are not directly regulated but are indirectly affected because the Act limits the availability of anonymous printed material. A person who distributes a paper without proper printer identification may be prosecuted under section 9. This creates an environment in which any printed paper circulating in the Territory should be traceable to a printer.

Finally, the Act affects legal practitioners advising on defamation, media law, or compliance. The discovery provision in section 8 is unusually broad - it overrides the ordinary pleading rules and compels a defendant to disclose names even before the merits are tested. This is a powerful tool for a plaintiff who suspects defamatory material in a newspaper but cannot identify who to sue.

The primary duties are imposed on printers and publishers. Under section 4(1), a person who prints any paper other than a newspaper for publication or dispersal must cause his or her name, “Printed by”, and the address of printing to appear legibly on the front page or, if multi‑page, the first or last page. Subsection 4(2) modifies this for bodies corporate: the body’s name (or abbreviation), the name of the person in charge of its printing business, and the business address must be used. The duty attaches at the moment of printing for publication - a printer who prints a batch for later publication must already comply; it does not matter whether the paper is ever actually distributed.

Section 5 imposes a record‑keeping duty only on those who print a non‑newspaper paper “for or in the expectation of hire, gain or profit”. The printer must keep at least one copy for at least six months after printing and must write or print on it the name and address of the person on whose behalf the paper was printed. This must be done “as soon as practicable after it has been printed”. This duty creates a paper trail linking the printer to the client, which is essential for enforcement and for any later libel or contempt inquiry.

Section 6 imposes a duty specifically on the printer of a newspaper. At the time of printing, the printer must cause both the printer’s name (or registered business name) and the publisher’s name and address to appear on the front or first or last page, each preceded by “Printed by” or “Published by” respectively, with the relevant address. Note that the publisher’s name is required even if the publisher is not the printer - the printer must obtain and include it. If the printer fails to do so, the offence is committed by the printer, not the publisher.

Section 9 imposes a duty on anyone who sells, offers for sale, gratuitously delivers, offers to deliver, leaves in a public place, or otherwise exposes to public view a non‑newspaper paper that lacks the required printer identification, or bears a fictitious or false name or address. This effectively bans distribution of unmarked papers. It is a strict liability offence (subject to the usual general defences under the Criminal Code, but the Act provides no explicit defence). Note the definition of “paper” does not include a newspaper for this section, so newspapers are not covered; they are already covered by section 6.

The Act also creates certain rights. Section 8 gives a person who commences an action for discovery of the name of someone concerned in a newspaper as printer, publisher or otherwise, in order to bring or carry on a defamation action, the right to compel discovery without the defendant being permitted to plead or demur to that claim. The discovery cannot be used in other proceedings. This right is procedural and overrides the ordinary rule that a defendant may resist discovery.

Section 11 provides a right to apply to the Minister for an exemption from a requirement of the Act, for a paper or class of paper. The exemption is discretionary, may be on terms, and lasts for a specified period. This could be useful for special publications, one‑off runs, or where the printer’s identity must be kept confidential for security or other lawful reasons.

Section 12 confers a procedural right on a person authorised in writing by the Minister to institute proceedings for an offence. Other persons have no standing to prosecute. This limits private prosecutions, which could otherwise be used vexatiously.

Section 10 provides defences for an executive officer charged with an offence: that the officer was not in a position to influence the body corporate; that the officer took reasonable steps to prevent the contravention; or that the officer did not know and could not reasonably have known the contravention would happen. Subsection 10(4) directs the court to consider, in deciding whether reasonable steps were taken, any action the executive officer took to ensure compliance assessments, implementation of recommendations, and employee/agent/contractor knowledge of the obligation. The defence is not available if the body corporate itself would have a defence to the relevant offence. These defences import a due diligence standard, so an officer who actively monitors compliance can avoid liability.

The maximum penalty for each offence under sections 4, 5, 6, 9, and 11(2) is 1.7 penalty units. At the time of the last amendment (2015), one penalty unit under the NT was $161, so 1.7 units equated to approximately $273.70. This has increased with indexation of penalty units since then. The penalty is modest - it is clearly intended to encourage compliance rather than to punish severely. However, repetition of offences could lead to multiple penalties, each capped at 1.7 units, which could accumulate.

For executive officer liability under section 10(1), the maximum penalty is “the maximum penalty that may be imposed on an individual for the relevant offence”. For a declared provision - currently sections 4(1) and 4(2) - the individual maximum is also 1.7 penalty units. So the executive officer faces the same fine as the body corporate would face for the substantive offence. This is a personal criminal liability that does not depend on the body corporate being prosecuted or convicted (subsection 10(7)). This means an executive officer could be prosecuted even if the body corporate is not, or if the body corporate was acquitted. The officer’s liability is separate. It is a regulatory offence under subsection 10(2) - meaning it is likely subject to lower mens rea requirements and standard evidentiary rules for regulatory offences under the Criminal Code.

Enforcement is constrained by section 12: only a person authorised in writing by the Minister may institute proceedings. This gives the Minister control over which offences are prosecuted and by whom. It is a gatekeeping mechanism that can prevent vexatious or politically motivated private prosecutions, but it also means that if the Minister does not authorise anyone, the Act is effectively unenforceable. In practice, the Minister likely authorises a departmental officer or the police. The authorised person does not have to be a government lawyer; the instrument creating the authorisation is prima facie evidence of authority (subsection 12(3)).

The evidentiary shortcut in section 7 assists enforcement: the name printed on a paper is prima facie evidence that the named person is the printer, commissioner, or publisher, as the case may be. This means the prosecution does not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the named person actually performed the printing; it can rely on the printed name unless the defendant rebuts it. However, because this is prima facie evidence, the defendant can bring evidence to contradict it. Still, it lowers the prosecution’s burden.

A key enforcement gap: the Act does not create any ongoing regulatory oversight. There is no licensing or registration regime for printers. The only ongoing obligation is the six‑month retention of copies under section 5. Enforcement is reactive, not proactive. The Minister could, however, use the exemption power (section 11) to relax requirements for specific printers or publications.

The Act has no specific penalty for breach of the discovery obligation under section 8. That section is procedural: it compels discovery, and if a defendant refuses, the court may enforce compliance through its ordinary coercive powers (such as contempt). The discovery cannot be used outside the proceeding.

There is also no penalty for breach of the record‑keeping requirement under section 5 if the paper is not printed for hire, gain or profit. That duty only applies to commercial printing; non‑profit printers have no retention obligation. This is an important carve‑out: a charitable organisation or community group printing free pamphlets need only comply with sections 4 and 9, not section 5.

The Printers and Newspapers Act sits within a broader legal landscape of defamation, contempt, business names registration, and corporation law. Its most direct interaction is with defamation law. Section 8 gives a plaintiff in a libel action concerning a newspaper a statutory right to discovery of the names of persons involved in the printing or publishing, before the action is fully pleaded. This overrides the usual common law requirement that a plaintiff must first plead a cause of action with sufficient particularity before obtaining discovery. The proceeding is for discovery only, and the discovery cannot be used in other proceedings. This provision interacts with the Limitation Act and the Defamation Act 2005 (NT) - a plaintiff must be careful that the discovery action is commenced within any applicable limitation period for defamation, because section 8 requires the person to “commence an action in a court for the discovery”. If the discovery is used to identify an unknown publisher, the plaintiff must then bring the defamation claim within the remaining limitation period.

Section 7 provides that the name printed on a paper is prima facie evidence in all courts and tribunals in any criminal or civil proceeding. This would apply in defamation proceedings to prove who printed or published the material, and in criminal proceedings for contempt, sedition, or similar offences. It may also interact with evidence laws - the court must receive the paper as prima facie evidence even if the identity of the printer is otherwise disputed.

The Act’s definition of “newspaper” excludes papers printed or published by the authority of a department or statutory corporation. This means government notices, newsletters, and official publications are not caught by sections 6, 8, or the newspaper‑specific provisions. However, they may still be “papers” under the broader definition and thus subject to sections 4 and 9 if printed by a private printer for the government. The Government Printer is also excluded from the definition of “paper” when acting in the course of duty, so government‑printed documents are entirely exempt.

Section 6 requires the printer’s name to be either the printer’s own name or, if the printer carries on business under a name registered under the Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth), that registered business name. This means a printer using a registered business name can use that name rather than their personal name. The interaction is with the Commonwealth Act, not state business name registration, because from 2012 the Northern Territory adopted the national scheme. The printer must be registered under that Act to use the business name; if not registered, the printer must use their personal name.

Section 10 creates personal criminal liability for executive officers of a body corporate. This interacts with the Criminal Code Act (NT) and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The “executive officer” definition includes directors and persons concerned in management, which may capture shadow directors. The defences in subsection (3) mirror the standard due diligence defences found in many regulatory statutes. The transitional provision in section 13 ensures that the new section 10 applies only to conduct occurring after the 2015 amendment date, while the old version continues for conduct before that date. This interaction is purely temporal.

The Act also interacts with defamation law in that the printer who prints a defamatory paper may be jointly liable as a publisher at common law. The Defamation Act 2005 (NT) provides for innocent dissemination defences for subordinate distributors, but that defence does not extend to a primary printer. The Printers and Newspapers Act does not provide any immunity; it merely imposes identification obligations. Thus a printer who complies with the Act may still be sued for defamation.

Finally, the Act’s exemption power in section 11 allows the Minister to override any requirement for a particular paper or class of paper. This could be used to accommodate new technologies or to exempt a specific publication where identification would be impractical or dangerous. The Minister’s decision is likely reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (NT) but there is no privative clause.

The Printers and Newspapers Act 1984 (Act No. 41 of 1984) received assent on 25 September 1984 and commenced on that date. It repealed three earlier ordinances: the Printers and Newspapers Ordinance 1928 (No. 30 of 1928), the Printers and Newspapers Ordinance 1929 (No. 7 of 1929), and the Printers and Newspapers Ordinance 1934 (No. 16 of 1934). The 1984 Act was a consolidation and modernisation, but it retained the essential structure of the 1928 Ordinance. The first substantive amendment was in 2010.

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Act 2010 (No. 12 of 2010) amended sections 4, 5, 6, 9, and 11 to replace the previous fixed penalty amounts with 1.7 penalty units. This was a standardisation of penalties across NT legislation. The Act received assent on 20 May 2010 and commenced on 1 July 2010.

The Business Names (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Act 2012 (No. 8 of 2012) amended section 6 to replace references to the Territory’s Business Names Act with a reference to the Commonwealth Business Names Registration Act 2011. Part 3 and 4 of that amendment commenced on 28 May 2012, and the remainder on 27 April 2012. From that date, a newspaper printer could use a business name registered under the national scheme.

The most significant amendment was the Statute Law Amendment (Directors’ Liability) Act 2015 (No. 26 of 2015). This Act received assent on 18 September 2015 and commenced on 14 October 2015. It substituted a new section 10 and inserted a new Part IV (section 13) dealing with transitional matters. The old section 10, which had made executive officers liable only if they “authorised or permitted” the contravention, was replaced with a more detailed provision. The new section 10 created an offence for any executive officer if the body corporate commits an offence under a declared provision; provided three defences; set out factors for determining reasonable steps; clarified that the body corporate need not be prosecuted; and defined “executive officer” as a director or other person concerned in management. Section 13 ensured that the new section applied only to conduct after commencement, with the old version continuing for prior conduct and for post‑commencement situations where the new section did not apply due to timing.

The Interpretation Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (No. 22 of 2018) made general amendments of a formal nature to section 1 (short title) but these are not separately listed in the table of specific amendments.

The Act remains in force as at the last reprint in October 2015. There have been no further amendments noted; it is a minor statute that has been subject to minimal legislative attention. The trend has been to standardise penalties and to strengthen personal liability of corporate officers, but without expanding the scope of the primary duties.

The Act itself does not refer to any specific court cases. There is no litigation history recorded in the source document. The Act is not commonly litigated; it is a compliance statute that typically only features in prosecutions for failing to print identification, or as an ancillary issue in defamation proceedings. The discovery provision in section 8 has likely been invoked in defamation cases where the plaintiff cannot identify the publisher of a newspaper - but there is no case law cited in the Act or its endnotes. It is possible that unreported decisions exist in the Local Court or Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, but they are not mentioned.

Given the low penalty level, most prosecutions would be dealt with summarily. The evidentiary provision in section 7 has probably been used in both criminal and civil proceedings to establish who printed a document, but again without reported decisions.

The 2015 amendment to section 10 may give rise to future litigation over what constitutes “reasonable steps” by an executive officer, and what it means for an executive officer to be “in a position to influence” the body corporate’s conduct. The factors listed in subsection 10(4) are non‑exhaustive, so courts have discretion to consider other matters. The defence that the officer “did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the contravention would happen” will require a court to assess the officer’s knowledge and the reasonableness of failing to know.

There is a notable absence of any definition of “declared provision” being extended under the regulation‑making power. No regulations have been made (or at least none are mentioned in the Act as printed). This means the litigation risk under section 10 is currently confined to sections 4(1) and 4(2). If the government ever prescribes additional provisions, the scope of executive officer liability could expand.

Defamation practitioners should be aware of section 8 and section 7, as they create procedural advantages for plaintiffs and evidentiary shortcuts. The interaction between section 8 and the Defamation Act 2005 (NT) has not been judicially explored in a reported case, but it may be relevant to questions of limitation periods and whether a discovery proceeding under section 8 can be stayed as an abuse of process. Because the Act is a creature of the Northern Territory, it will be interpreted by NT courts, which may take into account the legislative history and the purpose of ensuring traceability of printed matter.

In summary, the litigation history is sparse. The Act is more likely to be invoked as a background regulatory requirement than as the primary subject of a dispute.

Several traps lurk in the Act’s definitions and exceptions. First, the definition of “paper” excludes “matter of a commercial nature only”. This is not defined. A business card, a menu without editorial text, or a purely price list may be excluded - but if the document contains any opinion, commentary, or non‑commercial content, it may be caught. This line is unclear and can trap organisations that commission materials mixing commercial and other content.

Second, the exemption for a paper “printed or published by the authority of a department or statutory corporation” applies only to the definition of “newspaper”. For non‑newspaper papers, a government department can still be the printer and must comply with section 4 unless it falls within another exclusion (such as the Government Printer exemption). But note that the definition of “paper” excludes documents printed by the Government Printer in the course of duty - so if a department uses the Government Printer, its documents are exempt from the entire Act. But if it uses a private printer, the private printer must identify itself, and the department must keep records under section 5. A department that prints its own material using an internal printing press that is not the Government Printer’s office is not automatically exempt. The Act is silent on whether a department is a “body corporate” for the purposes of section 4(2) - it is not, as a government department is not a body corporate. Thus section 4(1) (individual) applies, but the department is an organisation, not an individual. Who must be named? The person who prints - that is, the person having management and control of the printing press. That may be an individual employee, who would have to put his or her personal name and address. This is an absurd outcome and suggests a drafting oversight.

Third, the definition of “duplicating machine” excludes offset duplicating machines. This means that if a newspaper is printed on an offset duplicating machine, that machine is not a “duplicating machine” and thus not excluded from the definition of “printing press”. Consequently, the machine is a printing press, and the printer must comply with sections 6 and 7. Conversely, a newspaper printed on a non‑offset duplicator (a spirit duplicator, for instance) is not printed on a printing press, so the printer is not within the Act’s definition and perhaps does not need to comply with section 6. But the term “newspaper” still applies - the Act would require someone to be “the printer” but that person does not have management and control of a printing press, so the definition may be inapplicable. This could be a loophole for very small circulation newspapers.

Fourth, the six‑month retention period under section 5 applies only to printing for hire, gain or profit. If a person prints a paper for free (gratuitously), they need not keep a copy. This is a trap for the unwary: charitable organisations and political groups often print for free distribution; they have no retention duty, but they still must section 4 identifications. If a libel or complaint arises later, they may have no record of who commissioned the paper.

Fifth, section 9 prohibits gratuitous delivery of a non‑newspaper paper that lacks proper printer identification, or bears a false name. This means that even a single handbill left in a public place without identification is an offence. The prohibition applies to the person who sells, offers for sale, delivers, offers to deliver, leaves in a public place, or exposes to public view. So the distributor is liable, even if the printer omitted the identification. A distributor should always inspect the paper before distribution.

Sixth, the discovery provision in section 8 is extremely broad: the defendant “shall not be permitted to plead or demur to the claim”. This means a newspaper defendant cannot challenge the plaintiff’s right to discovery on any procedural ground. This can be used strategically by a plaintiff to identify anonymous authors or sources before suing. The discovery cannot be used in other proceedings, but it can be used to frame a defamation claim.

Seventh, the executive officer liability in section 10 does not require the body corporate to be convicted or even prosecuted. An executive officer can be prosecuted alone. The due diligence defence is available, but the burden of proof is on the officer (on the balance of probabilities, as usual for defences). An executive officer who relies on sub‑delegation without active oversight may not satisfy the “reasonable steps” test.

Eighth, the Minister’s exemption power in section 11 is discretionary and can be revoked or varied. An exemption may be granted on terms, and breach of those terms is an offence (penalty 1.7 units). There is no right to be heard before exemption is withdrawn.

Finally, the Act does not require newspapers to include the publisher’s address if the publisher is the same as the printer? No - section 6 requires both separately, so even if the printer and publisher are the same person, both name and address must appear with the appropriate label.

Compliance requires systematic attention to identification, record‑keeping, and distribution.

For any printed paper that is not a newspaper and is distributed (including free): the printer must ensure that on the front page (or first or last page if multi‑page) the following appears in legible characters: the words “Printed by”, followed by the printer’s name, followed by “at” and the address at which the paper was printed. If the printer is a body corporate, instead print the body’s name (or an abbreviation), the name of the person in charge of its printing business, and the business address. Do not use a fictitious or false name. Ensure the printing is done before publication - the name must be on the paper when it is printed, not added later. Keep a template or check‑list for each print job.

If the paper is printed for hire, gain or profit, the printer must keep at least one copy of the paper for at least six months after the date of printing. On that copy, the printer must write or print the name and address of the person on whose behalf the paper was printed. This should be done as soon as practicable after printing - ideally on the same day. Keep a central register of all commercial print jobs with copies attached.

For newspapers: the printer must, at the time of printing, cause the following to appear legibly on the front page or first or last page: “Printed by [printer’s name or registered business name] at [address]” and “Published by [publisher’s name] of [publisher’s address]”. The printer must obtain the publisher’s name and address before printing. If the printer and publisher are the same, both statements must still appear, but with the same name and possibly different addresses if the printing address and publishing address differ. The printer should double‑check that the publisher’s details are current. If the printer uses a registered business name, ensure it is registered under the Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth); otherwise use the printer’s personal name.

For distributors (anyone who sells, offers for sale, delivers gratuitously, leaves in a public place, or exposes to public view a non‑newspaper paper): before distributing, inspect the paper to confirm that the printer’s name and address (as required by section 4) are printed and are not false. If the paper is a newspaper, check that both printer and publisher details appear. Do not distribute any paper that fails this check. Ensure that no paper is distributed with a fictitious or false name or address.

Executive officers of bodies corporate that print papers: implement a compliance program. Ensure the body corporate has a system to verify that each print job includes the required identification. Conduct regular assessments of compliance, as subsection 10(4)(a)(i) suggests. Implement any recommendations from assessments. Educate employees, agents, and contractors about the requirement. When an executive officer becomes aware that a contravention may be about to happen, take immediate action to prevent it - for example, halt the print run or correct the identification. Keep records of all compliance measures. If an offence occurs, the officer may be able to rely on the defence of having taken reasonable steps.

If a specific paper or class of paper presents genuine difficulties in complying (for example, a very small item like a stamp or a business card that cannot legibly bear all required information), apply to the Minister under section 11 for an exemption. The application should set out the reasons and proposed terms. Note that the exemption is discretionary and the Minister may impose conditions. Comply with any conditions; breach is an offence.

If a plaintiff in a defamation action needs to discover the name of a person involved in a newspaper, section 8 can be used. The plaintiff should commence an action specifically for discovery, not a general action. Do not use the discovery obtained in any other proceeding.

Prosecutions under the Act can only be instituted by a person authorised in writing by the Minister. If a printer believes they are being vexatiously threatened with prosecution, they should verify whether the person who brought the charge has written authorisation. The instrument of authorisation is prima facie evidence; the defendant may challenge it, but the burden is on them.

Finally, keep a consolidated file of all Gazette notices issued under section 11 that may exempt certain papers or classes. Check before printing whether an exemption applies. The Act does not require the Minister to notify each printer individually.