Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill modernises Queensland's defamation laws to address the realities of online publishing. It implements nationally agreed reforms that create clearer rules for when online platforms, search engines, internet service providers, and forum administrators can be held liable for defamatory content posted by their users. It also makes it safer to report matters to police by extending absolute privilege to those reports.
Who it affects
Online platforms and forum administrators gain clearer defences against defamation claims for third-party content, while people defamed online have stronger pathways to get content removed within 7 days. People reporting crimes to police gain absolute privilege protection, meaning they cannot be sued for defamation for making a report.
Key changes
- Search engines and platforms providing caching, conduit, or storage services are exempt from defamation liability if they do not take an active role in publishing the content
- Digital intermediaries (including community forum administrators) have a defence if they maintain an accessible complaints mechanism and take reasonable steps to remove defamatory content within 7 days of a complaint
- Courts can order non-party platforms to remove or block defamatory content, even if the platform itself is not being sued
- Courts must consider privacy and safety concerns — including domestic violence risk — before ordering disclosure of anonymous posters' identities
- Reports made to police officials now attract absolute privilege, so you cannot be sued for defamation for making a police report
- Criminal defamation law updated so digital intermediaries protected in civil proceedings also have a lawful excuse in criminal proceedings
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee14 Oct 2025View Hansard
Referred to Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee
The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee examined the Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 over six weeks, receiving five written submissions and holding a public briefing with the Department of Justice. The committee found the bill appropriately implements Queensland's commitments under the nationally agreed Model Defamation Provisions and recommended the bill be passed without amendment. All submitters were generally supportive, though stakeholders raised practical questions about digital intermediary definitions for local councils, the scope of absolute privilege, and safeguards for domestic violence victims in court processes.
Key findings (5)
- The bill implements Stage 2 of nationally agreed Model Defamation Provisions, aligning Queensland's defamation laws with other Australian jurisdictions.
- All five stakeholder submissions were generally supportive of the bill, with suggestions for further amendments rather than opposition.
- The Local Government Association of Queensland raised concerns about whether council-run platforms constitute digital intermediaries and sought clarification on moderation practices.
- The North Queensland Women's Legal Service and the Victims' Commissioner highlighted that the bill's court process reforms will help protect domestic violence victims from defamation proceedings being used as a tool of abuse.
- The committee found the bill is compatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019, concluding that any limitations on freedom of expression are justified to protect individuals' privacy and reputation.
Recommendations (1)
- The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading11 Dec 2025View Hansard
Vote on a motion
Opposition procedural motion defeated 31-52, likely related to debate time allocation or the government's guillotining of debate on other bills during the sitting week.
The motion was rejected.
A formal vote on whether to accept a proposal — this could be the bill itself, an amendment, or another motion.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (31)
Noes (52)
▸19 members spoke19 support
As Attorney-General, moved the second reading and presented the bill implementing nationally agreed Model Defamation Provisions. Outlined six key reforms including digital intermediary liability, absolute privilege for police reports, and foreshadowed amendments on DNA testing and evidence law.
“This bill strikes the right balance between protecting reputations and freedom of expression in the context of modern digital challenges.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
As shadow attorney-general, confirmed Labor supports the bill implementing the Model Defamation Provisions. Criticised the government for not consulting the CCC as requested but supported the substantive reforms including digital intermediary protections and absolute privilege for police reports.
“Queenslanders should be able to interact online, express their views and participate in community life without fear that digital platforms will become places of unchecked harm. That is why the Labor opposition will be supporting this bill.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
As chair of the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee, reported the committee's recommendation that the bill be passed. Outlined how the bill addresses the gap between outdated defamation laws and modern digital communication.
“The Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill brings Queensland's defamation laws into alignment with national reforms and ensures they remain contemporary, fair and effective.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Spoke in favour of the bill as implementing nationally agreed reforms, acknowledged submitters' contributions, and highlighted the digital intermediary liability reforms and the extension of absolute privilege to police.
“This bill ensures Queensland remains consistent with other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, while addressing uniquely Queensland concerns.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a vital update to the 2005 Defamation Act, emphasising the extension of absolute privilege allowing victims to report to police without fear of defamation, and the modernisation of document service via electronic communication.
“This means Queenslanders, especially victims of crime and domestic violence, can report offences to police without fear of being sued for defamation.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and focused on practical implications for Facebook community group administrators, cautioning people to check what groups they administer to avoid inadvertent liability.
“I urge those who are on Facebook to check what groups they might be administrators for.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
As a committee member, supported the bill implementing nationally agreed reforms, highlighting the digital intermediary exemptions, the seven-day complaints mechanism, and the extension of absolute privilege to police.
“By putting these reforms into action we are protecting everyday people and our local businesses from unfair exposure to defamatory statements.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Delivered a philosophical speech on the importance of truth and defamation law as a foundation of democracy, supporting the bill as closing the gap between outdated laws and modern digital communication.
“Defamation law protects not silence, but meaningful speech grounded in reality.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as modernising legislation over 20 years old, introducing greater protections for victims reporting to police and new defences for online community forum administrators.
“The Crisafulli government is determined to keep Queenslanders safer, and this is another piece of legislation that works towards that goal.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as striking an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and reputation protection, and used his speech to criticise a local community Facebook page for hosting defamatory and inflammatory content.
“This legislation will not stop people from expressing views, and nor should it, but it will require those who host digital spaces to meet minimum standards of responsibility.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Briefly spoke in support of the bill as part of the ongoing national defamation reform process, highlighting digital intermediary protections and the extension of absolute privilege to police.
“This bill recognises the far-reaching footprint of the modern digital age and devices, protects reputations and assures freedom of expression.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as delivering protections needed for communities like Redlands, highlighting the new defence for community page administrators and the ability for courts to identify anonymous posters.
“For the Redlands, these reforms are essential. They mean safer online spaces, stronger protection of reputations and clearer rules for all.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as a critical and timely legislative measure modernising Queensland's defamation laws in the digital age, covering digital intermediary exemptions, court powers, and electronic service of documents.
“This bill is both practical and balanced. It is a forward-thinking piece of legislation that will ensure Queensland's defamation laws remain relevant and effective in a rapidly changing digital environment.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
As a former police officer, supported the bill's sensible mechanisms for digital platform complaints, the seven-day response timeframe, and particularly the absolute privilege protection for police performing their duties.
“We do not want police to feel that they are going to face defamation action when they are providing good information to the community.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Provided a legal analysis of the bill's framework for digital intermediary liability following the High Court's Voller decision, supporting exemptions for passive intermediaries and the new defence for platforms with complaints mechanisms.
“Getting the unglamorous work of government right—making rights and responsibilities clear and providing simplicity in terms of legal obligations and red tape—really is essential to making Queensland an attractive place to invest.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as bringing defamation laws into the 21st century, ensuring only those who are defamatory are held accountable and giving platforms the opportunity to remove content before being held liable.
“The courts are being given a new power to order the removal of defamatory content, even if the platform is not part of a legal case. Everything that this government does is about making Queensland safer.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill and acknowledged the work of social media moderators across Queensland, noting the legislation provides important protections for those managing community pages.
“It is a pretty thankless job to be a moderator of social media pages. I know firsthand that they would see a lot of vile comments they would rather not see in a civilised society.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
As a former police officer, supported the bill for delivering fairness, clarity and modern tools for the digital age, particularly for volunteers and small businesses running community pages.
“This bill delivers fairness, clarity and modern tools for the modern digital age.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
Supported the bill as ensuring contemporary and fit-for-purpose defamation laws, detailing the digital intermediary exemptions, the seven-day complaint response mechanism, and the extension of absolute privilege to police.
“This bill provides a contemporary fit-for-purpose defamation law that meets the new and emerging legal issues in the digital world.”— 2025-12-11View Hansard
▸In Detail11 Dec 2025View Hansard
Amendment to the Criminal Code to clarify that police officers and prosecutors are not taken to have failed to exercise reasonable diligence merely because they relied on forensic services provided by Forensic and Scientific Services or Forensic Science Queensland, ensuring victims affected by the DNA testing debacle can still access justice through the double jeopardy retrial framework.
Amendments Nos 2 and 3: technical amendment to chapter heading and insertion of a transitional provision ensuring the amended double jeopardy fresh evidence rules apply retrospectively to all persons subject to the framework.
Amendment to the Evidence Act 1977 to provide that tendency and coincidence evidence can be tendered at committal proceedings but the special admissibility rules under part 7A do not apply, ensuring magistrates do not make determinations about evidence admissibility that are properly the function of trial judges.
Amendment to the long title of the bill to include reference to the Evidence Act 1977, reflecting the addition of amendments to that act.