Activist Shane Bazzi to claim ‘opinion’ defence in Peter Dutton lawsuit

Shane Bazzi is relying on an honest opinion defence to fend off Peter Dutton’s defamation claim over a tweet calling him a ‘rape apologist’.

Defence Minister Peter Dutton during Question Time in Parliament House in May. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Refugee activist Shane Bazzi will seek to rely on a defence of honest opinion to fend off a defamation claim brought against him by Peter Dutton over a tweet in which he labelled the Defence Minister a “rape apologist”.

The tweet, on February 25, was posted alongside a link to a Guardian Australia article reporting Mr Dutton’s suggestion in 2019 that some women on Nauru “claimed they’ve been raped” to secure a medical transfer to Australia for an abortion – a service not available on the island nation.

Mr Dutton, who has previously extracted an apology from Greens senator Larissa Waters over a similar tweet, is seeking damages, including aggravated damages and costs. He argues the tweet reached a “very large number of people” and conveyed four defamatory imputations, including that he condones and excuses rape.

Mr Bazzi’s defence has been prepared by barristers Richard Potter SC and Louise Goodchild. They say the tweet was “based on a number of publicly reported statements” attributed to Mr Dutton, including a suggestion in 2019 that asylum-seekers on Nauru had lied about being raped to get an abortion in Australia.

They also say the tweet was published in the wake of Mr Dutton’s response to rape allegations made by former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins, who has claimed she was sexually assaulted by another former staffer in the Parliament House office of former minister Linda Reynolds in March 2019.

It says Mr Bazzi’s tweet was an expression of honest opinion related to public interest, including the issue of sexual violence on women working in Parliament House and the public discourse concerning the “dismissal, denial and distrust of women” who make allegations of sexual violence.

The defence of honest opinion is notoriously difficult to prove. In Mr Bazzi’s case, he will be required to prove to the court that his decision to label the defence minister a “rape apologist” was an opinion based upon “proper material” and not a “statement of fact.”

Michael Douglas, senior lecturer at the University of Western Australia’s Law School, said the court will need to consider if Mr Bazzi’s inclusion of a link to a news article falls within the definition of “proper material.”

“One interesting aspect of what has happened here, is the fact there has been a link to online content,” Mr Douglas said. “The question here is whether that’s enough.”

“In the (Joe) Aston case, if the commentator had of awkwardly described all of the facts on which he was making his judgments about Dr (Elaine) Stead, then the defence may of been made available.”

The court will consider if Mr Bazzi’s inclusion of a link to a news article falls within the definition of “proper material”.