The Gunns case, in which the world’s largest woodchip exporter is suing critics it accuses of ‘corporate vilification‘ is a typical instance of companies wanting to have it both ways. On the one hand, advocates of the corporation deny that corporations can have any moral or ethical obligations, other than to their shareholders. On the other hand, they want all the protections available to a natural person, including protection from defamation[1]. An individual who acted the way a company is supposed to act in the standard theory would be a sociopath, incapable of being defamed because of the absence of any justified reputation.

In this case, of course, we have the equally important issue of defamation laws being used to suppress free speech on political issues. I doubt that Gunns will prevail, but they don’t have to – a corporation with deep pockets will always win at this kind of game, unless the courts come down hard. I hope that they not only lose but are forced to pay a full accounting of the costs they’ve imposed.

fn2. On the third hand, to mangle the metaphor, the officers and shareholders expect to be protected from any sort of liability for their corporate actions, relying on the sanctity of the ‘corporate veil’. I had a go at this topic here

Reader Graeme Bond pointed me to this ABC radio Ockham’s razor special on the way Australia deals with mental illness, especially the Cornelia Rau case, also dealt with on last night’s Four Corners. The Rau case brought into focus how awful it is that places like Baxter detention centre exist, but far more mentally ill people end up in prison. An obvious question is whether the closure of mental hospitals in the 1970s was a bad idea, or a good idea taken too far. Graeme writes

Instead of updating psychiatric institutions, as is done with hospitals, schools etc, we have replaced them with ‘community based neglect’ and another institution, prison.

No one suggests ‘community care’ for other serious illnesses requiring hospitalisation. It is sometimes akin to suggesting open heart surgery on the kitchen table.

Not all mentally ill require a high level of expensive care, many, such as the homeless on the streets would have their lives vastly improved by little more than hostels with a low level of supervision and assistance with Centrelink forms so they were not reduced to begging. It is preferable to jail and probably cheaper.

Others simply need occasional brief periods of hospitalisation during a crisis and otherwise live relatively normal lives with their families.

and this seems pretty convincing to me. We’ve had a string of inquiries into this issue, without, it seems, making much progress.

According to this ABC report, the Rann government in SA is trying to scrap parliamentary privilege against defamation actions, as a direct response to a political crisis in which the former Speaker, Peter Lewis, who resigned yesterday, has made accusations that a number of prominent people, including MPs, are pedophiles[1]. Although it appears that Mr Lewis named names, and that publication of these names would be protected by parliamentary privilege, the reports I’ve seen don’t give names.

In defence of the legislation, Rann is quoted as saying that there’s nothing to fear from making statements if they’re true, but this claim is itself false. His objection to Lewis’ statements is not that they are provably false, but that they are unsubstantiated. The fact that MPs can make allegations that are true, or at least plausibly grounded in evidence, but not provable in court is the essence of Parliamentary privilege.

There are some changes I’d like to see made in defamation law as it relates to MPs. First, and conversely with Parliamentary privilege, I’d like a strengthening of the principle that criticism of MPs by members of the public should be protected free speech under the Constitution. Second, I’d like an expansion of the existing rights of reply (I’ve never used this mechanism in response to criticisms of me in Parliament, but I think Clive Hamilton has). Finally, the Parliament itself, through the Speaker, ought to be more rigorous in calling MPs to account for abuses of privilege[2].

One thing is for sure. Making radical changes to fundamental institutions in the heat of the moment is a very bad idea.

Update 6/4/5 The Bill has been withdrawn

fn1. This Advertiser report isn’t exactly consistent, suggesting Lewis stated “that a serving MP had been involved in homosexual acts in the south parklands.” This might, I suppose, include violations of age-of-consent laws.

fn2. Given the dominance of the party system, I’m less sure about this last item.