The representatives of media groups and the APC argued against anonymity for 28 deceased child victims for the following reasons : o Restrictions were unique to NSW – they argued that [at the time of the report] NSW was unique amongst common law jurisdictions in prohibiting the naming of child homicide victims o They created an anomalous situation between states – due to the law not being consistent across states of Australia, interstate publications could report the name of a homicide victim involved in criminal proceedings in NSW and NSW newspapers could report interstate cases where there is a child homicide victim o Discontinuity – the fact restrictions only applied once proceedings had commenced meant the deceased child could be named in the media prior to proceedings but not once they have commenced o Impact of reporting on open justice and keeping the public informed – they argued that not being able to name child victims in reports would lead to reduced impact and coverage associated with a case, thereby reducing the public’s opportunity to be fully informed and follow cases through to their conclusion. o Against interests of some victims’ families – they pointed to bereaved families who want to have their child’s case reported or use it to campaign for change o The impact of restrictions on siblings was questionable - they argued that the circumstances would already be known in the siblings’ peer network so the impact of e.g., a newspaper reader knowing the name would have little additional impact o Issues with right of the “senior available next of kin” to waive restrictions – the process around this was described as “cumbersome”, could lead to inconsistencies with some outlets being given permission and other not, and places pressure on the next of kin to deal with media queries 36.