Australia's defamation laws could be amended to stop plaintiffs "forum shopping" by filing disputes in the Federal Court instead of a state court to avoid a jury hearing the case, under changes to the outdated laws being considered by a national working group.

NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman spearheaded a national review of the country's defamation laws in June last year, more than a decade after the states and territories passed uniform laws to replace an unworkable system of eight different defamation laws across the country.

NSW Attorney-General Mark Speakman has spearheaded review of defamation laws. James Alcock

On Tuesday the Council of Attorneys-General will release a discussion paper to inform the review, which earmarks 18 areas for potential reform.

Among the areas on which public submissions are invited is the current discrepancy between the Federal Court and state-based District and Supreme Courts in using juries to hear cases.

The paper also calls for submissions on the desirability of a British-style "serious harm" test to weed out trivial cases before they proceed to a trial, and raises questions about whether the defence of qualified privilege, relating to publications in the public interest, needs to be more flexible.

The Federal Court has emerged as the forum of choice for a number of famous plaintiffs in defamation cases and experts have suggested the court offers a range of strategic advantages, including the likelihood that the case will be heard by a judge alone.

Under the Defamation Act enacted in each state, either party has the right to elect for a case to be heard by a jury. But the Federal Court has ruled this provision does not apply to defamation trials in that court and the general rule is the cases will be heard by a judge alone.

In some disputes, including cases involving public interest journalism, a defendant may prefer a jury hear the case.

The discussion paper says that "several submissions" to an earlier NSW review suggested that, "notwithstanding increased harmonisation [of defamation laws], the remaining inconsistencies in the role of juries" in different jurisdictions may undermine the national "objective of promoting uniformity, and may not fully address issues of forum shopping".

"The Law Council of Australia observed that actions that arguably should have been brought in NSW were being brought in the ACT [where there are also no civil juries], presumably on the basis that plaintiffs perceive their prospects of success as being greater before a judge sitting alone, and to avoid a defendant electing trial by jury," the paper says.

The paper calls for submissions on whether the Federal Court should be brought into line with state courts, where either party can elect for a jury unless the court orders otherwise. It also poses a broader question about whether judges should be empowered to dispense with a jury in a broader range of circumstances.

Mr Speakman said his "counterparts from around the nation have agreed to the content of the discussion paper which will help inform submissions on defamation reform from media outlets, internet providers, social media platforms, lawyers and anyone interested in this important area of the law".

The Defamation Act "came into force before the social media explosion and so is in need

of a digital makeover", he said.

Submissions on the discussion paper close on April 30 and further public consultation is slated for late 2019. New laws are expected to be introduced in Parliament in June 2020.