Page 14 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In his presentation speech for these laws, the Attorney-General stated that large corporations had used defamation actions to stifle public comment on the quality of products and services of companies.
As the relentless process of capital accumulation and concentration in the western world continues so, too, does the increasing political power of corporations and wealthy individuals. I have no desire to live in a world where companies the likes of Gunns Ltd decide what I can and cannot say or do. Companies like Gunns have abused the trust placed in them by the public and now all companies have to bear the cost of Gunns’ unethical behaviour.
Of course, they are not alone in abusing the law to silence critics. I take little solace from the fact that these laws will only represent a bump along the road of growing corporate power. These corporations are already finding new legal mechanisms, besides targeting political donations, with which to translate their economic wealth into politic clout.
It would be nice to think that we could have laws which distinguish between bona fide criticism and policy debate on the one hand and malicious abuse of our freedoms of expression on the other. I recognise that such provisions would be formidably difficult to draft and enforce. Sadly, this bill does not contain such provisions and I am concerned that it represents a somewhat heavy-handed and bandaid solution to problems with the laws by which the wealthy few can silence legitimate critical commentary. Still, a bandaid is better than a poke in the eye, and I will be supporting the bill.
These laws will be strengthened and complemented by the Greens’ protection of public participation bill, which seeks to limit the power of corporations to bring legal actions for the improper purpose of stifling legitimate political expression. I would have liked to have seen clauses in this legislation proscribing corporate office holders from suing in their own right in reliance upon any imputation arising from any statement made about a corporation. This is what happened in the Hindmarsh Island case.
In striking the balance between protecting individuals from defamatory statements and protecting the right to free speech, Australia will still lag behind much of the developed world. There is much more liberty in the United States and in Europe to speak out on issues of public importance. Indeed, most developed countries have a constitutionally recognised right of free speech. Australia does not.
Good defamation laws are essential to the effective operation of a representative of democracy. Even eternal vigilance will not defend our liberties well if the right to express the injustice and corruption we seek is stifled by the threat of criminal or civil persecution. Too often civil defamation laws and the expense of the legal process have been used by powerful interests to silence their critics.
In the new sedition laws we see the criminal laws being perverted to serve the political agenda of the radical right. Of course they are cloaked in the rhetoric of defending us from terrorist attacks. But their effect is to stifle legitimate criticism of government actions and policies. Media operators will self-censor rather than risk being charged with offences against the state for publishing material critical of government policy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .