Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard wants man suing him for defamation to be named

Speaker Trevor Mallard is being sued for defamation. Photo / Mark Mitchell

An ex-parliament staffer suing Trevor Mallard for defamation after a sexual assault claim is fighting to keep his details secret.

He was stood down by the closed shop Parliamentary Service last year after a review into bullying and harassment at Parliament, which revealed 14 people said they had been the victim of a sexual assault in the parliamentary workplace.

Shortly after the report was released on May 21 the Speaker of the House spoke to media and made the statements on which the action is based.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Peter McKnight, said the man was not a public figure and sharing his identity would mean nothing to the public, but it would be a huge concern to the man and his family.

McKnight told the hearing it was interesting how the only person seeking the suppression lift was the defendant, whereas in other cases media applied for the name suppression to be lifted.

"This is only an interim measure, so what happens later on in trial is a different measure."

Concerns were also raised about the man and a family member's health as well as the potential adverse effects that sharing his name would have.

He argued that the precedent of lifting suppression may discourage others from making defamation claims against high profile people.

Mallard's lawyer, Robert Stewart, told the hearing that the continuation of non-publication orders prevents full reporting and would result in one-sided stories, which would disadvantage Mallard.

"Media representatives should be free to provide fair and accurate reports."

Speaker Trevor Mallard announcing a parliamentary staff member has been stood down, pending investigation into sexual assault. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Stewart said anyone who makes a claim like this needs to accept some things, which may be embarrassing, will be made public.

The plaintiff is seeking $400,000 in damages, on top of $50,000 in punitive damages, and court costs.

Included in the non-publication order are the plaintiff's name, address, which section of parliament he had worked in, as well as the number of staff in his area of work.

The defence also argued that the suppression orders severely limited the defendant's case, which prevented him from making inquiries into the plaintiff's background.

"His ability to prove those incidents is severely limited by those suppression orders and those non-publication orders.

"Whether you're well known or not well known, courts are open."

Associate Judge Johnston said it wasn't hard to see how the current suppression orders might curtail Mallard's defence.

The judge has reserved his decision.