THE Attorney-General, Greg Smith, has promised to consider examining any ''super injunctions'' - non-publication orders, the existence of which may not be published - if anyone complains.

But Mr Smith told a parliamentary budget estimates hearing yesterday that he was unaware of any such injunctions in NSW. ''I thought it was more in connection with England than here, relating to the recent News Ltd scandals,'' he said. ''My recollection seems to be there was concern over the use of those powers in England. I am not sure of any examples [here].''

NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith. Credit:Peter Rae

Mr Smith was responding to questions from the Greens MP David Shoebridge, who replied: ''You may not have heard about it because it may be covered by a super injunction.''

Mr Smith asked: ''Do you have any example that you could talk about without breaching confidentiality?'' Mr Shoebridge replied: ''If I had, it would almost certainly be covered by a super injunction.''

A string of court orders dubbed super injunctions came into effect in Britain this year covering celebrities and preventing publication of allegations relating to their private lives, usually of a sexual nature. While conventional media have largely felt bound by these injunctions, social media have often circumvented them. The ensuing debate has raised issues of press freedom and privacy laws.

In Australia, courts make suppression orders from time to time - usually to protect impending trials. It is also considered contempt of court for media to publish certain information ahead of jury trials.