THE COMPLAINT IN THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT

The Hon A.J. Redford:
A few weeks ago I raised an issue of an action between the Chapmans of Hindmarsh Island fame and the Green Left Weekly and Dr Draper wherein I advised this place that the Green Left Weekly and Dr Draper, who was represented by the member for Mitchell had been ordered to pay the Chapmans $100,000 damages for defamation, and amount that took away the breath of the Hon. Sandra Kanck.

The Hon. K.T. Griffin interjects

The Hon A.J. Redford:
I admitted that, yes. Today I have had given to me an internet article purportedly issued by an organisation described as 'SISIS' - Settlers in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty purportedly based in Canberra.

The article states ... The Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Incorporated has been established to support aboriginal women defending a sacred site near Adelaide, Australia. The website for the group was originally housed in Australia but was closed by legal action from the developers of a bridge [unclear] to Hindmarsh Island. A second website was established in the UK, however, this has just been closed following legal threats to the service provider. The KLDF is now urgently seeking secure space. Space must be 100% secure with the server ... agreed to house the site despite legal threats from the bridge developers. We don't want to close the site for a third time. The site will be one of a very few ways in which we can now get out the information about what is [unclear]

It goes on and says: Regardless of the motivation of the plaintiffs or the merit of individual cases, Pring and Canan argue that the overall effect is to silence some people in organisations. This is in reference to SLAPP writs.

It continues: This can be seen to represent a curtailment of the basic civil rights of freedom of speech.

It then goes on to state: The KLDF - which I assume is the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Incorporated - is asking for financial assistance for costs associated with legal research, [unclear] and legal fees. It then refers to a number of articles, one of which is "Hindmarsh Island: An Australian Democrat Issue Sheet".

One would hope that more than 1,000 hours were put into that. In any event the concern that I have is that the Chapmans as I understand it have issued proceedings and sought injunctions on the basis that the Kumarangk Coalition, which is an unincorporated body, has no money and it is extraordinarily difficult to establish the identity of people who publish documents and they tend to slip away into the night. As a consequence the courts have issued injunctions restraining the issue of some of the statements they are making because, in the long run, they cannot be held accountable for those comments.

The other issue that concerns me is that on the face of it it would appear that the Settlers in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty are seeking to invite people to invest or deposit money with the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Incorporated, which I understand is a body incorporated pursuant to the Associations Incorporations Act 1985.

In that regard my questions to the Attorney are:
1. Will the Attorney investigate whether or not the conduct on the part of the incorporated body Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Incorporated is in breach of section 53 of the Association Incorporation Act in seeking to invite deposits?
2. Will the Attorney General advise whether the use of the Internet is creating problems with people seeking to avoid their obligations pursuant to our defamation laws?
3. Will the Attorney-General raise this issue at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to see what response can be taken to prevent this obvious circumvention of the law?

Link: South Australian Legislative Assembly

THE KLDF REPLIES

The Hon. Angus Redford, MLC
Parliament House
North Terrace
Adelaide 5000

Re: Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc (KLDF)

We write in response to your parliamentary question to the Attorney-General regarding our organisation (the KLDF).

We believe that your statements about the functions and conduct of our organisation are incorrect, and the inferences you draw are both false and offensive. Given the Attorney General's response in agreeing to look into the matters you raised, we have written directly to him in the hope of avoiding a waste of taxpayers money on unnecessary investigations.

You will see from the facts set out in that letter (attached) that the KLDF does not solicit or accept deposits of the kind referred to under s 53 of the Associations Incorporation Act. Further, given that you are aware that the KLDF is incorporated in South Australia and therefore is clearly subject to South Australian law, we find offensive your inference that we have attempted to circumvent South Australian defamation (or any other) law.

Background Background to the defendents Links Email   A bridge writ large (covers the launch of this website) News of the cases Is this website defamatory? Actions against the KLDF Tricky Legal Business: The Impact of Legal Processes on the Campaign Against the Hindmarsh Island Bridge   KLDF media releases Defamation ruling against Green Left article Fresh evidence threatens bridge

The facts of the matter could easily have been made known to you had you consulted us directly before making such comments to the parliament. Your statements were clearly erroneous and have caused us great offence and hurt. We therefore believe it is appropriate that you issue an apology to the KLDF in the parliament.Please advise us of when you intend to issue such an apology.

If you would like any further information about the KLDF, or wish to discuss any of the matters here, please contact us as above.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Ogle
Public Officer
Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc.

The Hon. Trevor Griffin, MLC
Attorney-General
Parliament House
North Terrace
Adelaide 5000

Re: Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc (KLDF)

We write to you regarding the questions asked by the Hon A J Redford in parliament concerning our organisation (KLDF), and the undertakings you made in response to that question.

We believe that Mr Redford's statements to parliament contain some misinformation. Further, we believe that his statements about the functions and conduct of our organisation are incorrect, and the inferences he draws are both false and offensive.

Please allow us to clarify the situation as we understand it.

Firstly, the "internet article" Mr Redford quotes is not part of the materials we have published on our web site. It contains some incorrect statements about the KLDF and matters related to it. The KLDF was not formed in order to support "Aboriginal women defending a sacred site near Adelaide". Rather, as our leaflet (enclosed) and our WWW site state, the KLDF was formed in order to "assist in the organisation of financial, moral and legal support for the people and organisations who are being sued in connection with the campaign to stop the building of the bridge to Hindmarsh Island."

The information provided to parliament about our web site is also incorrect. We originally had a web site with an English Internet Service Provider (ISP). It was closed by the ISP after they received a letter (we presume from the Chapmans' lawyers) alleging that our site contained material defamatory of the Chapmans. We have not been able to obtain a copy of this correspondence. We have had no correspondence from the Chapmans nor any lawyer acting on their behalf, and we have taken every precaution to ensure that our site does not contain defamatory material to the extent that is possible given the uncertain and complex state of the law of defamation in this state.

I now turn to the questions asked of you by Mr Redford.

1. Will the Attorney investigate whether or not the conduct on the part of the incorporated body the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Incorporated is in breach of section 53 of the Associations Incorporation Act in seeking to invite deposits?

We are a small organisation which has raised funds by seeking donations and organising fundraising events, (in common with a great many Associations under the act) . The KLDF has never attempted to invite deposits of the kind referred to by s 53. Our leaflet and WWW site which seek donations make this clear.

Judging by the excerpt read out by Mr Redford in parliament, there is nothing in the information he has obtained to suggest otherwise, and we are at a loss to understand his interpretation of our functions and conduct as being in any way relevant to s 53 of the Act.

2. Will the Attorney-General advise whether the use of the internet is creating problems with people seeking to avoid their obligations pursuant to our defamation laws?

The KLDF shares your understanding of defamation law, namely, that there is nothing to prevent a civil action in defamation being taken against anyone who publishes a statement on the internet (as elsewhere). If this question was intended by Mr Redford to suggest that the KLDF is in some way avoiding its obligations, we are at a complete loss to know how that may be. We are incorporated in South Australia, as Mr Redford clearly knows, we have a clear postal address and a public officer as required of an Association by law.

While we have made every effort to ensure our publications do not give rise to defamatory implications, if other people do not share our opinions, there is nothing to prevent them suing us.

We invite you to visit our WWW site and form your own opinions: http://www.green.net.au/hindmarsh

3. Will the Attorney-General raise this issue at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to see what responses can be taken to prevent this obvious circumvention of the law?

If this statement is intended to refer to the KLDF, we are at a complete and utter loss to understand what obvious circumvention of the law we may be involved in.

As I have stated, we do not believe that we have breached the Associations Incorporation Act. Nor do we believe that we have done anything to avoid being subject to the law of defamation.

Currently we find ourselves in the position of having been compelled to relocate our internet site, which we firmly believe does not contain defamatory material, because it has proved possible to have that site removed from the internet through sending a letter to our former ISP in England.

No legal action or judgement has proved necessary to have that site closed down.

So far from us avoiding the law of defamation, we believe at the moment we have had our capacity to publicise our organisation and to seek donations impaired because the law of defamation is so complex and unpredictable, and defending a defamation suit is so expensive, that no media organisation or ISP is likely to choose to retain material that is alleged (whether correctly or incorrectly) to be defamatory. Even a successful defence of such a suit is extremely expensive and time consuming, as the defendants we are trying to support know only too well.

Conclusion

We believe that the direct suggestion by Mr Redford that the KLDF is in breach of the Associations Incorporation Act is highly offensive as well as clearly incorrect. Indeed, had it been made outside parliament, such a statement could form the foundation of a defamation suit.

Further, we believe that any implication arising from Mr Redford's question that the KLDF seeks to avoid its obligations under the law of defamation or that it would engage in an "obvious circumvention of the law" is offensive and defamatory. In so far as they suggest that we deal unlawfully with funds or are not to be trusted, such statements could clearly be interpreted as lowering the reputation of the KLDF and resulting in economic loss from the decreased likelihood of people donating funds to the KLDF.

We therefore request that the parliamentary record be set straight by a statement from you as Attorney-General and/or by an apology from Mr Redford for his misrepresentation of our organisation and for the highly offensive statements he has made about us under the protection of parliamentary privilege. These statements could, we believe, have been avoided if Mr Redford had taken five minutes to consult the internet site about which he appears to be so concerned.

We invite you to contact us should you require further information concerning any of these matters.

Yours sincerely,

Greg Ogle
Public Officer
Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc.

cc. Angus Redford, MLC

KLDF media release: Historic First For SA Parliament (5 April 2000)