*Pic: Matt Newton
• Richard Griggs, Tasmanian Director of Civil Liberties Australia:
Civil Liberties Australia (Tasmania) has welcomed the Tasmanian Government’s decision not to proceed with proposed changes to the Defamation Act 2005.
“This is a good day for democracy and freedom of speech in Tasmania”, Richard Griggs said.
“People from all walks of life spoke out against this proposal and the Government listened and acted.”
“Tasmania will be better off without these laws and the silencing effect they would have had on freedom of speech.”
“We risked becoming a magnet for corporations seeking a jurisdiction in which they could sue and we would have been out of kilter with the rest of Australia.”
• Jenny Weber Campaign Manager The Bob Brown Foundation: Tasmanian Government backs down from another blunder
The Hodgman Government’s attack on environmentalists has blundered again. This time, to avoid becoming the legal laughing stock of Australia, it has admitted that the proposal to change the defamation laws is not supported anywhere else in the country.
Bob Brown said that “the Hodgman Government is riddled with mistakes and backflips and next on the agenda will be its planned invasion of the World Heritage wilderness. Hodgman’s three-headed dragon to attack the Tasmanian environment and environmentalists now has two heads off – the mandatory imprisonment of protesters and these proposed draconian defamation laws. Now the third dragon’s head – a 37 pronged invasion of developments into the World Heritage Area wilderness – needs to go. It will raise international alarm.”
Jenny Weber, Campaign Manager of the Bob Brown Foundation, said that “A broad range of high profile critics came out against these changes to the defamation law because they were poorly thought out by a Government that is bent on persecuting environmental advocates and the environment to the benefit of large resource-extraction companies.
In this case the proposed law change was to benefit the Sarawak timber baron Ta Ann, operating in Tasmania’s native forests, from a truthful campaign to expose the company’s misleading information in the Japanese market. Australian Governments should not be penalising their citizens practising freedoms in a democracy.”
John Hawkins, Chudleigh: What could have happened …
A giant Malaysian corporation would have been in a position to squash its critics (and extract potentially thousands of dollars) if Will Hodgman’s Liberals had gone ahead with the legislation.
Ta Ann is not currently in a position to sue – for example the Huon Valley Environment Centre – under the current law as it is a corporation with more than 10 employees.
But under changes mooted by Hodgman’s Liberal Government and its Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin ( Read Richard Ackland’s analysis of the plans here: Companies suing critics. That’s the real enemy of free speech ), all that would have changed.
And a giant Malaysian corporation could have brought the weight of law to squash its critics.
Listen to this warning shot contained in this Ta Ann document: Ta Ann: In Sarawak … Growing for the future … released a few years ago.
Ta Ann ominously says:
Defamation in Australia
Material will be defamatory if it could:
1. injure the reputation of the individual by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule;
2. cause people to shun or avoid the individual; or
3. lower the individual’s estimation by right thinking members of society
However, under the uniform Defamation Law introduced by Australian States in 2006, corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue and gain relief from the Courts. This booklet seeks to counter these defamatory claims.
This is why we have Ta Ann and its acolyte Liberals in this State.
It is why Ta Ann was pushing for a change that would have made Tasmania the only State in the Federation to allow SLAAP Suits back into the courts.
The Minister for Forests Paul Harriss and federal Liberal Senator Eric Abetz ( Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Employment, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Liberal Senator for Tasmania ) are the movers and shakers in this drama, I believe.
Both are known to be close to Ta Ann and both have paid homage to this company on visiting Sarawak.
• Christine Milne: Defamation backdown a victory for Tasmanians
Greens Leader Christine Milne is congratulating Tasmanians who railed against the Liberals’ sneaky attempt to change the state defamation laws to silence their critics.
“The Hodgman government has embarrassed itself, and Tasmania, by replicating Tony Abbott’s protection of big business at the expense of the community,” said Senator Milne.
“Governments should act in the interests of voters, but what we’re seeing at the state and federal level is Liberal governments pushing to see how much they can get away with on behalf of their big business donors, and only backing down when the electorate revolts.
“This is a big blow to crony capitalism in Tasmania. People are sick of Tasmania’s Liberal and Labor parties being the spruikers for logging and mining companies, against the interests of the community,” said Senator Milne.
“How undemocratic is it that the Liberals were prepared to prop up the native forest logging industry by silencing the community? It’s another demonstration of how unviable and unsustainable the industry is, and how sycophantic the Liberals are.
“Existing defamation laws will now remain in line with others around Australia, thanks to all those who took the time to tell the Liberals that freedom of speech matters.”
• Peg Putt, Markets for Change: Fortunate Triumph for Free Speech
The dumping of proposed defamation law changes in Tasmania was welcomed by Markets For Change, an environment group whose activities informing international markets of the source of wood products from contentious logging had been mentioned in association with the Hodgman government’s proposal.
“The Tasmanian government was on a witch hunt seeking to intimidate & victimise environment groups for a domestic political audience but the proposals were unwarranted, unnecessary & extreme,” said MFC CEO Peg Putt.
“Having been rebuffed around Australia the Hodgman government has been forced to back down, but they should apologise for the false claims they made about us in the process.”
“We have been truthful & well researched but the fact is they would prefer retailers & consumers kept in the dark about environmental travesties.”
“Freedom of speech is vital, & in the markets a demand for the highest ecological credentials requires an information glow independent of vested interests,” ms putt said.
Legal remedies already exist for corporations who believe they have been injured by misrepresentation.
• Benedict Bartl, Community Legal Centres Tasmania: Rejection of Defamation Act Amendments Welcomed
Community Legal Centres Tasmania today welcomed the Attorney-General’s announcement that the Government will not proceed with amendments to the Defamation Act 2005 (Tas) to allow corporations to sue for defamation.
Community Legal Centres Tasmania spokesperson Benedict Bartl said:
We are very pleased that the Attorney-General has taken on board the concerns of the community by deciding not to pursue amendments to allow corporations to sue for defamation. Amendments would have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech, allowed corporations to forum shop and would have set a dangerous precedent for uniform legislation around the country.
The proposed amendments were rejected by a large number of unions and environmental and community organisations including the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the Law Society and Civil Liberties Australia.
Benedict Bartl said:
We remain hopeful that the government will continue to consult on proposed Bills in future which will in turn result in better laws being enacted. In particular, we call on the Attorney-General to re-commit to judicial discretion by ruling out mandatory sentencing in any proposed legislation.
• Lara Giddings: Liberals dubious political agenda in free fall
The Tasmanian Liberals’ dubious political agenda remains in free fall after another embarrassing back down by Premier Will Hodgman.
“The decision to dump changes to Tasmania’s defamation laws is the latest in a litany of broken promises and flawed legislation,” Shadow Attorney-General Lara Giddings said.
“The public backlash against the proposed changes to defamation laws has left Mr Hodgman red-faced yet again.
“No wonder Mr Hodgman has gone missing again, leaving others to handle the bad news.
“It is further proof of the Liberals’ incompetence.
“Simplistic populist slogans do not make good policy.
“The Government must now listen to the experts and also abandon its policy to scrap suspended sentences.
“Just as Mr Hodgman did not think through the consequences of changes to defamation laws, the Liberals have not produced any evidence that scrapping suspended sentences would lower crime rates.
“It’s time for Vanessa Goodwin to listen to stakeholders sand scrap the idea of removing suspended sentences which is just another of the Liberals ill-conceived policies.
“The Liberals list of failures and back flips continues to grow from its lack of action on forestry to flawed protest laws to abandoning pay freeze legislation, cutting promised funding to U-Turn and now walking away from defamation laws.
“Adding to the list, Mr Hodgman has broken his promises on cutting jobs and frontline services and his reckless decision-making has been exposed time and time again.”
• news.com.au: Ta Ann Tasmanian praises State Government backdown on defamation laws …
THE business at the centre of the Liberals’ bid for controversial new defamation laws says it is glad the proposal has been scrapped.
As revealed by the Mercury today ( here ), the State Government has backflipped on its election promise to restore the right of companies to sue for defamation.
Reluctance by other states to change national uniform laws and intense public pressure combined to kill off the plan.
However it appears one of the Liberals’ key justifications for the law change has also disappeared, with a statement issued today by timber company Ta Ann indicating the company was pleased with the outcome.
Ta Ann was the target of an international campaign against its logging practices, a campaign the Government says led to the loss of 40 jobs.
But in today’s statement Ta Ann Tasmania’s general manager Robert Yong said the decision “made good sense and would be well understood in the market place”.
Mr Yong said Ta Ann has always supported free speech and the right of people to fairly put different points of view.
“Our focus as a company over the last three years has been on developing new products and new markets,” Mr Yong said.
“Future market prospects and new ways of doing business are vital to success. As such, we are continuing to honour our commitment under the Market Compact with ENGO’s. We only accept log supply from State Forest areas that had been agreed for long-term sustainable wood supply through a contract with Forestry Tasmania.”
The scrapping of the the defamation laws has been widely welcomed, although there has been some disappointment in the business community.
• Nick McKim: Win for Free Speech as Libs Abandon Gag Laws
Nick McKim MP | Greens Justice spokesperson
After not even knowing what a SLAPP suit was during Budget Estimates last year, Attorney General Vanessa Goodwin’s education is now complete as she has backed down from her draconian attempt to introduce gag laws in Tasmania.
“We are very pleased that the Attorney General has backed down. It’s a win for freedom of speech and a win for environmentalists who want to tell the truth about what’s happening in our forests without the threat of facing a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation),” Greens Justice spokesperson Nick McKim MP said today.
“Dr Goodwin’s claim that she has been listening to Tasmanians is laughable. She has backed down because Attorneys General around Australia, including many from the Liberal Party, were horrified at the forum shopping and the breakdown in national consistency that would have occurred.”
“She has clearly forgotten that the Liberals in the Tasmanian parliament voted for the nationally consistent approach that she was trying to dismantle.”
“If she was really listening to Tasmanians why did she develop such draconian legislation in the first place, and why did she wait until the embarrassment had reached humiliating proportions before acting?”
“If the government withdraws its decision to sack over 250 teachers from our public education system then we can truly believe that they have started listening,” Mr McKim said.
• RJ Peak, in Comments: It is so refreshing to hear a politician actually speak the truth. Dr Goodwin is quoted on the ABC’s Website as admitting that “…the policy [on changing the defamation laws] was based on the forest industry’s wishes alone and she had not canvassed other stakeholders” ( here ). Of course, in the land of crony capitalism this approach to formulating policy and making law is SOP. Perhaps Dr Goodwin hasn’t been in Tasmanian politics long enough to learn that one never reveals to the public how the state’s legislative sausages are actually made and who is really in charge of the meatworks.
• Mercury, Saturday Soapbox, Professor Quentin Beresford: Mates in the highest of places The contrast with the collapse of Gunns could not be more stark; deafening silence has enveloped both sides of politics in response to Gunns’ collapse. The reason is obvious: Liberal and Labor parties at both federal and state levels have been deeply involved in promoting Gunns’ agenda and have been compromised by the power the company wielded. Gunns was embedded in a system of power that guaranteed unquestioning support from the two major parties. …
