Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3245 ..

The government amendment to this bill limits the application of general damages to imputations of criminal behaviour, but the issue surely is that such imputations can be withdrawn, the public record can be set right, and that the Supreme Court can make an order to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation if necessary. Would that not resolve any problems of imputations to someone's reputation? How, for example, do confidential settlements achieve such a vindication of reputation? Clearly they do not. The point at issue in defamation law ought to be to ensure integrity and make amends, rather than simply reward a plaintiff. It ought not to be to give the plaintiff the opportunity to threaten action for substantial damages, vindication of reputations notwithstanding.

The problem with general damages is that they can be used, and are used, pre-emptively. Community-level activists and organisations can be too easily bullied by corporations, by business leaders, by individuals and organisations of wealth and status. The threat of defamation action can be used, and is used, to conceal a multitude of sins and a multitude of self-interested acts.

We are all well aware of what are now called SLAPS, or strategic litigation against protestors, and it is a well used strategy by corporations in particular to try to silence people in the community who are, with the community interests in mind, trying to see particular issues made public and debated. This is not a good thing for a society. We have real problems with the use of strategic litigation and it needs to be taken very seriously by parliaments. There has been no compelling case made for general damages, and it is disappointing to see that here in the ACT we are moving forward so slowly towards a more rational regime.

The bill has had an interesting path. Following the tabling of the committee report, it appeared that it may have gone off the boil. My office contacted officers in the department and some kind of round-table discussion was mooted. We heard nothing more about this bill. Then, about a week before the last sitting week, the Defamation Bill appeared again on the government program. My office was involved in some prompt round table discussions regarding possible amendments to the bill, but, and I think we are all aware that our time has been rather pressured, that process was not fully resolved. On 7 August the government tabled its response to the committee inquiry.

This is not a particularly thorough process. The Greens had in mind a number of further amendments, shifting the balance away from the affluent and powerful, but they would have required considerable work and negotiation. We simply have not had the time to progress that far.

I will take the opportunity of this debate to put on the record changes to defamation law that the Greens are interested in pursuing, and if this bill is adjourned now we are prepared to take up the running in the next Assembly. The Greens hold the view that members of the community ought to be free to speak about the performance of public officers and not be vulnerable to defamation actions in regard to statements reflecting on their performance; that we ought to enjoy the freedom to speak on matters of public interest; and that only natural persons ought to be able to sue for defamation, and we would be free to speak about corporations.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .