Supermarket giant’s legal letter prompts TTG Council to cancel live stream of debate on Richardson Reserve sale
GERMAN supermarket giant Kaufland has pressured Tea Tree Gully Council into cancelling the proposed live stream of a crucial debate on the sale of Richardson Reserve. READ KAUFLAND’S LETTER TO THE COUNCIL.
A GERMAN supermarket giant has pressured Tea Tree Gully Council into cancelling the proposed live stream of a crucial debate on the sale of Richardson Reserve.
Lawyers for the German supermarket chain, which wants to purchase 3.4ha of the Wynn Vale site for $13.8 million, have warned the council it could face litigation over comments made by residents fighting the proposal if a meeting on August 14 is broadcast live on social media.
Councillor Paul Barbaro, who moved for the live stream, told last week’s council meeting a letter from Kaufman’s lawyers to elected members was “intimidating and threatening” — claims rejected by several of his fellow councillors who said it offered sensible advice.
“This is a deliberate attempt to scuttle debate and is quite outrageous,” he said.
“It is an insulting letter designed to threaten this council and intimidate some people. It is just not on.”
Councillors will receive a detailed report from staff about the offer from Kaufland to buy Richardson Reserve and subsequent consultation with the community for deliberation at the August 14 meeting. They are expected to vote whether the proposal proceeds.
Hundreds of residents have indicated they want to attend the meeting, with many wanting to speak against the sale of the reserve, predominantly used as the home ground for the Modbury Vista Soccer Club.
More than 1400 people have signed a petition lodged with council opposing the sale while there have been heated exchanges on social media, particularly Facebook, with those supportive of funds raised from the deal being used by council to relocate Modbury Vista to Golden Grove.
In the letter to councillors, Botten Levinson Lawyers said Kaufland was concerned uncensored comments made during the meeting by individuals could be defamatory.
It said the live streaming of public submissions “carries the inherent risk that the council, even as an innocent disseminator, could be liable for defamatory comments made by a person making a deputation”.
“The proposed acquisition has undoubtedly aroused substantial passion in the Tea Tree Gully community and it is foreseeable for a person making a deputation to let their passion get the better of them and make a comment that could be actionable defamation,” it said.
“Little can be done to prevent things being said at the meeting, but it is possible to reduce the damage by declining to broadcast it.”
Under SA law, companies can be defamed — however, only those with fewer than 10 employees can actually sue for defamation and loss of business.
Botten Levinson suggested the council, if it wanted to live stream the meeting, could confine the broadcast to deliberations by its elected members rather than people making submissions from its public gallery.
Councillor Matthew Harbison agreed with the supermarket’s lawyers, saying “terrible things” already had been said about council staff, elected members and Kaufland on social media and other forums over Richardson Reserve.
“I have serious concerns about the potential for defamatory comments if this meeting is live streamed.”
Cr Barbaro said the Kaufman letter had been sent to the council’s chief executive, John Moyle, three hours before councillors were due to discuss his motion to live stream the August 14 meeting.
It had been forwarded onto elected members at the “eleventh hour” as they prepared for their fortnightly meeting, he said.
Cr Barbaro argued the live stream was for residents who could not attend the meeting on August 14 because of frailty, lack of transportation or disability.
“This issue has received unprecedented coverage,” he said.
“This (the proposed live stream) is about elected members looking after their community.
“Councils live stream all the time. None of them are being sued.
“There is no risk. It is a just a cop out. The ones who don’t want to make this go live will answer to their community and I will make sure of that.”
Council voted 5-4 against live streaming the meeting on Youtube, which had been investigated by staff as the most likely option.
colin.james@news.com.au