URGENT MEDIA RELEASE
4pm Thursday October 26, 1998KLDF disappointed by Hindmarsh Island defamation decision
The Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund today expressed its disappointment at the findings in the defamation case of involving Margaret Allan (Green Left Weekly) and Neale Draper and the Chapmans.
The Chapmans were awarded $100,000 damages by Justice Lowrie after an interview with anthropologist Neale Draper was published in Green Left Weekly.
Spokesperson for the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund, Mr Tom Glynn said, "Obviously we are disappointed by today's verdict. However we note that this was a finding of a white court (partly) on issues of Aboriginal consultation and heritage but the court did not hear from any Ngarrindjeri people."
"There were no Ngarrindjeri witnesses at the trial. We hope that the Ngarrindjeri people will be heard in other cases, as this is only one of several cases which address similar themes. We don't believe there is a precedent set here and are confident of a different outcome at later trials."
" There are also wider issues which this verdict brings into consideration. As we understand it, the publishers of Green Left Weekly did not mount a defence because they could not afford the time and resources to defend the action. Defamation cases are complex and expensive. Given the number of cases against individuals and small community groups over Hindmarsh Island there are serious issues of access to justice to be addressed."
Tom Glynn Spokesperson for the KLDF
MEDIA RELEASE
Wednesday April 5, 2000Historic First For SA Parliament
The South Australian Legislative Council today saw the first use of its "right of reply" provisions for community groups and individuals. At 3.15pm the President of the Legislative Council incorporated into Hansard a reply from the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc (KLDF) to statements made about it by Mr Angus Redford in December 1998. It is the first time this right of reply has been used after sessional Standing Orders were introduced to allow individuals and community groups to reply to adverse statements made about them under parliamentary privilege.
Spokesperson for the KLDF, Mr Greg Ogle said,
"We are very pleased to have the opportunity to correct the parliamentary record after Mr Redford made a number of incorrect and damaging statements about our organisation."On December 10 1998 Angus Redford made statements to parliament prior to asking a question of the Attorney-General. Mr Redford suggested that the KLDF had breached the Associations Incorporation Act by soliciting deposits contrary to the Act. He also suggested that the KLDF, among others, might seek or was seeking to evade their legal responsibilities under defamation law by using the internet.
Mr Ogle said,
"Mr Redford used second or third hand information, did not check his facts with us, and basically got it wrong. He got his facts wrong about the KLDF, he got his law wrong in relation to our website, and he made incorrect and damaging claims about our organisation.""The KLDF seeks donations to help individuals and community groups being sued for defamation by Hindmarsh Island developers, Tom and Wendy Chapman. We do not seek deposits (in breach of the law) as Mr Redford claimed. And as an organisation incorporated in South Australia, we are clearly responsible for the content of our website, although we do not believe that it contains any defamatory material."
In a speech to the parliament after the KLDF's reply was put into Hansard, Mr Redford claimed he had been misquoted and was not refering to the KLDF in his original comments.
Mr Ogle said,
"Mr Redford's response was disappointing. Mr Redford clearly named the KLDF in his original comments. If he wasn't refering to us, why did the parliament accept our reply? His attack on us made under parliamentary privilege should never have happened in the first place, but he should have at least admitted his error today and apologised."For further information/comment, please contact
Work hours: Mr Greg Ogle: Ph: 8303 3392Hansard of KDLF request for right of reply to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Wednesday 5 April 2000KUMARANGK LEGAL DEFENCE FUND
The PRESIDENT: I advise honourable members that I have received a letter from Mr Tom Glynn on behalf of the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. requesting a right of reply in accordance with the sessional standing order passed by this Council on 26 October 1999. This organisation, in its letter to me of 23 November 1999, considers that it has been adversely referred to during proceedings of the Legislative Council. Following the procedure set out in the sessional standing order, I have given consideration to this matter and believe that it complies with the requirements of the sessional standing order. Therefore, I grant the request and direct that the reply of the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. be distributed now to honourable members and be incorporated in Hansard .
Response: Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund (Inc)
The Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund (Inc ) (KLDF) requests that it be given a right of reply to comments made to the Legislative Council by the Hon. A.J. Redford in the course of asking questions of the Attorney-General on 10 December 1998.
In his comments, Mr Redford used quotes from an `internet article' purportedly issued by an organisation described as Settlers in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty. The nature of Mr Redford's explanation prior to asking questions of the Attorney-General was such as to suggest that the KLDF had breached the Associations Incorporation Act by soliciting deposits contrary to the act. In quoting from the `internet article', he also suggested that we, among others, might seek or were seeking to evade our responsibilities under defamation law by using the internet.
The `internet article' quoted by Mr Redford in his statement prior to asking a question in the Legislative Council is not part of the materials published on the KLDF web site. It contains a number of inaccuracies which we would like to correct.
The KLDF was not formed in order to support `aboriginal [sic] women defending a sacred site near Adelaide'. Rather, 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' as our constitution states.
The information provided to parliament about our web site in Mr Redford's explanation is 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 alleging that our site contained material defamatory of the developers of a marina on Hindmarsh Island, Mr Tom Chapman and Ms Wendy Chapman. We have not been able to obtain a copy of this correspondence. At the time of Mr Redford's statements to the Legislative Council, we had received no correspondence from the Chapmans nor any lawyer acting on their behalf, though our postal address appears on the site. We have taken much care in an effort to ensure that our site does not contain defamatory material.
We provide the following responses to the questions asked 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?
The KLDF is a small organisation which has raised funds by seeking donations and organising fundraising events. The KLDF has never attempted to invite deposits of the kind referred to by s.53. Our web site, which invites donations, makes this clear. We do not believe that s.53 of the act is in any way relevant to our conduct or functions. Neither Mr Redford nor the Attorney-General have contacted the KLDF in order to ascertain the accuracy of the statements made by Mr Redford to the Legislative Council.
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?
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 wish to indicate that we are incorporated in South Australia, that we have a clear postal address and that we have a public officer as required of an incorporated 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. Subsequent to Mr Redford's questions in parliament and our response to him we have received a letter from Mr Palyga on behalf of the Chapmans indicating that we may in future be subject to a defamation suit.
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 wish to stress that we do not believe that we have breached the Associations Incorporation Act. While we have taken extensive care to avoid defamation, we do not believe that we have done anything to avoid being subject to the law of defamation.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I seek leave to make a personal explanation on the topic of the document that has just been circulated.
Leave granted.
Members interjecting:
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Mr President, the statement tabled by you pursuant to the sessional orders today makes a number of assertions in the right of reply which misquote and misrepresent what I said to this place on 10 December 1998. First, the submission states:
. . . he also [referring to me] suggested that we, among others, might seek or were seeking to evade our responsibilities under defamation law by using the internet.
I advise that I made no such suggestion in so far as the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. is concerned. I clearly directed my comments to the Kumarangk Coalition which, to my knowledge and pursuant to assertions made by the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc., are entirely different bodies. The two questions I asked on this topic made no reference to the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. Secondly, the submission states:
The `internet article' quoted by Mr Redford in his statement prior to asking a question in the Legislative Council is not part of the materials published on the KLDF web site.
I did not assert that the internet article was published by the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. on its web site. I clearly identified that it was published by SISIS (Settlers in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty) purportedly based in Canberra. This statement misrepresents what I said. If the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. does have an issue with SISIS and what it publishes, it should take up the matter with SISIS. Thirdly, the submission states:
The KLDF was not formed in order to support `aboriginal [sic] women defending a sacred site near Adelaide'.
The Hon. Sandra Kanck interjecting:
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: If the honourable member reads the standing order, she will see that I am entitled to notice of it. I ask her to read the standing order. I know that she has had a lot to do with this-
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Redford will come back to his point.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: The submission continues:
Rather, 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'. . .
Whilst I believe that the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. is splitting hairs, I was making no such assertion. I was merely quoting the article and, again, I would suggest to the complainant to take up the matter with the author of that article. Fourthly, the submission states:
The information provided to parliament about our web site . . . is incorrect. We originally had a web site with an English internet service provider.
Again, I provided no information to the parliament about a web site of the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. I referred to the web site of Settlers in Support of Indigenous Sovereignty (SISIS) and not the web site of the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. In that regard, I am happy, if called upon and ordered to do so, to lay on the table a copy of that web site. Fifthly, the submission states:
We have not been able to obtain a copy of this correspondence.
That is between the English ISP and Mr and Mrs Chapman. The submission continues:
At the time of Mr Redford's statements to the Legislative Council, we had received no correspondence from the Chapmans nor any lawyer acting on their behalf, though our postal address appears on the site. We have taken much care in an effort to ensure that our site does not contain defamatory material.
As I understand it, the correspondence is available to the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. on certain conditions. Further, the defence fund incorporated might have taken much care not to defame anyone, but it has altered its site, presumably, in response to suggestions that its material was defamatory. In any event, I had no idea whether or not the complainant had a web site, whether it was closed by an ISP, or of the existence of any correspondence between the complainant and Mr and Mrs Chapman or their lawyers. Indeed, I made no reference to any of these matters, other than the article published by SISIS. Sixthly, the submission states:
Neither Mr Redford nor the Attorney-General have contacted the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund in order to ascertain the accuracy of the statements made by Mr Redford to the Legislative Council.
Again, I fail to see how that is either a misquote-
The Hon. P. Holloway: It's a statement of fact.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: And I acknowledge that it is a statement of fact. Finally, in relation to the submissions on the latter two questions, I asked:
I point out that I made no reference to the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. in relation to the issue of avoiding defamation laws.
Further, the submission refers to Mr Palyga and correspondence which occurred after I made the comments to the parliament. It is disappointing that the first time a citizen has exercised their right of reply in this state the submission has been littered with misquotes or misunderstandings of what the member and, in this case, I said on the relevant occasion.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member is reflecting on the chair.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Lest I be misunderstood by other members in this place-
The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member is now debating the issue.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: I am moving on, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT: You identify quite properly where you have been misrepresented by the incorporation of those words, and your response to them has been very good until I intervened.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: Mr President, I am grateful for that at least. Lest I be misunderstood, let me record two things. I take no exception to the assertion of the Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. in the statement to the effect that it never attempted to invite deposits of the kind referred to in section 53 of the Associations Incorporation Act. It is its right to use the sessional order to answer the assertions made in parliament. Secondly, I initiated in the party room the motion to support the adoption of this sessional order, and I fully supported and continue to fully support the sessional order.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a speech, the Hon. Mr Redford. You are now debating.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: With the greatest respect, Mr President, I am entitled to put my position. I have been misquoted and misunderstood, and I am making a personal explanation.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Redford will resume his seat. I interpreted what you were heading off to say. You were starting to debate the whole issue.
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The PRESIDENT: Order, the Hon. Mr Cameron! Mr Redford, if you want to continue.
The Hon. A.J. REDFORD: In future, I would hope that misquotes or misunderstandings and submissions in relation to this sessional order will not be repeated.
The PRESIDENT: The honourable member is out of order in those comments.
