Defamation (Model Provisions) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill modernises Queensland's defamation laws to match nationally agreed reforms. It makes it harder to bring trivial defamation claims by requiring proof of serious harm, gives journalists and academics stronger defences when publishing on matters of public interest, and requires people to attempt to resolve disputes before going to court. It also fixes a heavy vehicle regulation issue before it causes problems for truck operators.
Who it affects
People who feel defamed must now prove actual harm before suing, while journalists, academics and online publishers gain stronger legal protections. Heavy vehicle operators using Performance Based Standards trucks avoid unfair penalties.
Defamation law reform
Implements nationally agreed changes that raise the bar for defamation claims and protect responsible publishing. Plaintiffs must prove serious harm to their reputation, send a formal concerns notice before suing, and accept that trivial claims will be dismissed early. Publishers gain new defences for public interest reporting and peer-reviewed academic work.
- New 'serious harm' threshold — must prove real damage to reputation, not just that something was defamatory
- Must send a formal concerns notice and wait up to 28 days before suing, giving the publisher a chance to make amends
- New defence for responsible reporting on matters of public interest
- New defence for peer-reviewed scientific and academic publications
- Single publication rule — limitation period for online content runs from first upload, not each time someone accesses it
- Tighter rules preventing corporations from structuring their businesses to get around the ban on corporate defamation claims
Heavy vehicle enforcement
Repeals two uncommenced provisions that would have created unfair and inconsistent penalties for Performance Based Standards vehicles travelling off approved routes. The underlying enforcement issues will be addressed in a broader review of the Heavy Vehicle National Law.
- Repeals sections 10 and 11 of the Heavy Vehicle National Law Amendment Act before they take effect
- Prevents unfair mass and dimension penalties for high-performance PBS vehicles detected off-route
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee20 Apr 2021View Hansard
Referred to Legal Affairs and Safety Committee
The Legal Affairs and Safety Committee examined the bill over six weeks, receiving six submissions and a public briefing from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General and the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The committee recommended the bill be passed, finding the defamation law amendments appropriately balance freedom of expression with the right to protection of reputation. The committee was satisfied the bill is compatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 and that any limitations on individual rights are justified in the circumstances.
Key findings (5)
- The bill implements nationally agreed Model Defamation Amendment Provisions 2020, fulfilling Queensland's commitment to maintain uniform defamation law across Australian jurisdictions
- The new serious harm threshold was broadly supported as a means of discouraging expensive litigation for minor or insignificant claims while encouraging responsible free speech
- Stakeholders including the Queensland Law Society and LawRight raised concerns about whether the serious harm threshold might create additional costs for plaintiffs, but the committee accepted the department's justification that it appropriately balances competing rights
- Community broadcaster 4ZZZ Radio supported the reforms, noting the new public interest defence and serious harm threshold would benefit smaller organisations that cannot afford prolonged defamation litigation
- The committee found the bill's amendments to the Heavy Vehicle National Law Act were necessary to prevent unintended and inconsistent enforcement outcomes for performance based standards vehicles detected off-route
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends that the Defamation (Model Provisions) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading15 June 2021View Hansard
▸22 members spoke22 support
Supported the bill as necessary to protect Queenslanders from misuse of defamation laws, sharing examples of defamation threats used to silence constituents in her electorate including by Redland City Council.
“Along with many in my community who have been adversely affected by defamation laws in the past, I fully support the bill and I commend it to the House.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Moved the second reading as Attorney-General, arguing the bill protects reputations from serious harm while encouraging responsible free speech and ensuring Queensland maintains uniform defamation law with other jurisdictions.
“These amendments to the Defamation Act and Limitation of Actions Act are aimed at protecting reputations from serious harm while encouraging responsible free speech.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Supported the bill's defamation reforms and the repeal of heavy vehicle national law provisions, welcoming the foreshadowed second stage of reform to address digital platforms.
“What we are addressing is the multiple publication rule... the amendments will discourage and prevent expensive litigation for minor or insignificant claims; otherwise encourage the early resolution of defamation claims.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Supported the bill while criticising the government's delay in introducing the reforms, noting Queensland lagged behind NSW, Victoria and South Australia. Provided extensive historical context on defamation law and raised questions about the interaction with parliamentary privilege.
“These laws are welcome and seek to improve the operation of the law of defamation, a law often bewildering in its complexity and frustrating in its application.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Supported the bill as modernising defamation laws for the digital age, emphasising the balance between freedom of expression and protection from reputational harm.
“Today we take another significant step in protecting the freedom of expression for all Queenslanders and ensuring open and transparent reporting continues across our state.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Spoke in support of the bill, outlining the background of the national model defamation provisions and the key amendments including the single publication rule, serious harm element, and new public interest defence.
“The department clarified to the committee why it is important that jurisdictions achieve and maintain defamation law uniformity.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Supported the bill's uniform defamation reforms as important for her cross-border electorate, and welcomed the second stage review of digital platform liability, while raising concerns about NHVR permit delays affecting her constituents.
“As a representative whose electorate shares boundaries with two states, New South Wales and South Australia, I am pleased the state jurisdictions came together on this matter.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Supported the bill as deputy chair of the committee but criticised the government's delay in introducing it. Echoed stakeholder concerns that the serious harm provision may not reduce litigation and could lead to cases getting tied up in court due to poorly drafted amendments.
“Whilst most of the amendments in this bill are positive, this should not overshadow the dangerous path taken to introduce significant changes without proper oversight.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Supported the bill, emphasising the importance of balancing free speech with protection from reputational harm, and criticising the LNP opposition's contradictory approach of calling the government lazy while cautioning the reforms were dangerous.
“The serious harm provisions and the notice of concerns are all matters that will stop powerful people like the protege of Bjelke-Petersen—the weird protege, Clive Palmer, who continues this tradition of misusing legal processes—misusing defamation laws to crush dissent.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Spoke in support of the bill, detailing the various amendments including the single publication rule, serious harm element, new public interest defence, and peer reviewed material defence.
“Queensland's commitment to the Model Defamation Amendment Provisions helps ensure a continuity of defamation laws in Australia.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Supported the bill, providing a detailed analysis of the key amendments including the single publication rule, serious harm threshold, concerns notice requirement, and new public interest and peer review defences.
“The passage of this bill, as other members have mentioned, will allow for consistency across Australian jurisdictions. The suite of defamation law amendments is said to provide clarity to courts, the community and the media in Queensland.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Supported the bill while questioning whether it will achieve the desired consistency and noting concerns that the amendments may not reduce litigation. Called for continuous review and suggested a future Commonwealth-led process for truly uniform defamation laws.
“While I support this bill, I question if this legislation will achieve the desired consistency and consider the issue raised by some submitters regarding whether a future process should be done through the Commonwealth to ensure uniform and appropriate defamation laws throughout Australia.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Spoke as Minister for Transport and Main Roads in support of the bill's heavy vehicle national law amendments, explaining the repeal of uncommenced provisions that would have caused unintended adverse enforcement for PBS vehicles.
“The repeal of sections 10 and 11 is strongly supported by both industry and jurisdictions. It is agreed that, to prevent significant unfair and disproportionate consequences for heavy vehicle operators, the status quo should be retained until a suitable resolution is achieved.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Spoke in support as a committee member, noting that submitters were generally supportive of the amendments and emphasising the single publication rule, serious harm element, and pre-litigation concerns notice process.
“Having spent quite a deal of time in the courts myself, yes, there are people who want their day in court, but overall parties usually on both sides just want a satisfactory outcome, delivered efficiently and with minimal stress.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Supported the bill as a commonsense update bringing defamation laws into the digital age, highlighting the importance of the peer review defence for academics at Griffith University in his electorate.
“These changes bring in a commonsense and uniform approach to defamation laws in this state.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Supported the bill and welcomed the stage 2 review of digital platform liability. Spoke extensively about the need to address cyberbullying and defamatory content on social media platforms.
“It is vitally important that Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions seize this opportunity to implement comprehensive policy reform, particularly with respect to the severe damage that can be caused by—and indeed, enabled through—cyberbullying via social media and online channels.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Supported the bill, outlining the key reforms including the serious harm threshold, public interest defence, and peer review defence for academics and scientists.
“The bill seeks to provide greater clarity to the courts, the community and the media while also protecting freedom of speech and ensuring open and transparent reporting.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Supported the bill, emphasising the need for consistency across Australia given the same material is often published across multiple jurisdictions and the importance of protecting reputations while allowing robust debate.
“A person's reputation can be the most valuable possession they own. All of us here would want our reputations protected from harm and would want to be able to take action when required to protect them.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill, particularly the serious harm threshold and public interest defence, arguing defamation laws have been misused by wealthy and powerful individuals to silence critics and journalists.
“I strongly support the introduction of the serious harm threshold for defamation proceedings similar to what already exists in the UK. I hope it means not only that fewer defamation actions succeed in circumstances where they clearly should not but also that fewer trivial or malicious claims are initiated in the first place.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Supported the bill while criticising the government's delay, noting it had a light legislative workload. Expressed concern about the increase in frivolous defamation cases and supported measures to reduce them.
“Anything that can be done to lessen the number of frivolous cases without restricting free speech is to be supported.”— 2021-06-15View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill, sharing personal experience of receiving four defamation concerns notices from LNP members and supporters, arguing the reforms would help protect free speech from misuse of defamation law.
“It is the party of supposed free speech that hides behind defamation lawyers. When we call out their bad behaviour and call out their public policies they hide behind lawyers and send me concerns notices.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
As Attorney-General, replied to the debate defending the bill and addressing questions raised by members, emphasising the reforms would discourage trivial litigation while protecting freedom of expression.
“The amendments to the Defamation Act and the Limitation of Actions Act are aimed at discouraging and preventing expensive litigation for minor or insignificant claims; otherwise encouraging the early resolution of defamation claims; ensuring that the law of defamation does not place unreasonable limits on the freedom of expression.”— 2021-06-16View Hansard
Assent date: 24 June 2021