GREENS AND LIBS MOVE TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH

In Parliament this week, Greens MP Kris Hanna proposed a new law to protect the public’s right to voice their views to government.

“The essence of the Bill is to put some obstacles in the way of those who are criticised in the course of public debate, perhaps because of their actions in public office, perhaps because of their proposed developments, or perhaps because of the way in which they run their business.” Mr Hanna said.

“It is an essential part of our democracy that members of the public should individually or collectively be able to criticise the behaviour of corporate entities in that way. The Bill I have introduced specifically protects public participation from spurious defamation claims.”

This form of litigation has been termed a SLAPP – Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation.

The most high profile SLAPP case in Australia is an action by forestry company Gunns Limited against 20 activists and environmental organisations who protested against the logging of old-growth forest in Tasmania.

“Although environmental activists have thus far been the target of SLAPPs, a wide variety of groups – such as animal rights organisers, unionists fighting for workers' rights or a local community group fighting for better consultation -could be caught up in this type of litigation.” Mr Hanna said.

“The growing use of SLAPP law suits is a threat to democracy. To protect the right of the public to participate in social and political activity, the Rann Government must support this Bill.”

Mr Hanna's move follows the Governments' introduction of anti-defamation legislation, based on a planned national standard intended to become national law by being proclaimed in all States.

The bill will limit the capacity of corporations or com­panies to sue for defamation. As originally proposed, this bill when introduced into this parliament prevented any company, a for-profit corporation, namely a business which is incorporated, to sue. We are glad that the Labor attorneys and the commonwealth government have come to an agreement on this to the extent that they will allow small businesses to sue
The national model provides for the States and Territories to change the laws by"

• inserting an objects clause that recognises the need to protect both personal reputation and freedom of expression;
• ensuring that truth is a stand-alone defence (as is already the case in South Australia)
• ruling out defamation of dead people (as proposed by the Commonwealth)
• removing the right of corporations to sue individuals
• shortening time limits for the ini
  tiation of litigation to 12 months
• capping damages so that they are not more than the awards for personal injury
• streamlining offers of amends – i.e. withdrawal of allegation and apologies and encouraging speedy settlement

Shadow Attorney General Robert Lawson said in Parliament this week that "defamation laws in this state seem to have been operated, certainly so far as the reported cases are concerned, for the benefit of politicians, union officials and police officers."

Mr Lawson went on to say that " It is extraordinary that so many of the cases which reach the courts in this state are really members of parliament or union officials squaring up in relation to matters of public interest. The case of Ralph Clarke v the Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson, which led to a settlement—the full details of which have never been satisfactorily disclosed to the public—is yet another case where we have politicians using the defamation laws of this state."

The bill will limit the capacity of corporations or com­panies to sue for defamation. As originally proposed, this bill when introduced into this parliament prevented any company, a for-profit corporation, namely a business which is incorporated, to sue.

Mr Lawson said he was " glad that the Labor attorneys and the commonwealth government have come to an agreement on this to the extent that they will allow small businesses to sue."