Thursday 28th of March 2024

Gunns 20

Hi everyone, being new to the the website and the forum I thought I would begin a discussion on the issue of the Gunns 20. They are a group of activists and organisations being sued by the Gunns corporation in the Victorian supreme court. People listed include four employees of the Wilderness society, The Wilderness Society itself, Doctors for Old growth Forrests and Senator Bob Brown.

There are a few websites on the topic which I will include as things progress. I would like to hear from anyone who knows more about this issue and potentially anyone who has a different view.

The story so far

It would appear that Gunns are slow learners or at least cannot read between the lines. After the second draft of their statement of claim was struck out of court by Justic Bongiorno of the Victorian supreme court. Gunns were ordered to pay the legal costs of the 20 defendents with the judge statine it would be a warning to Gunns as to what could happen should they choose to proceed. Gunns were also given till earlier this month to submit another statement of claim, which they have now done. It would appear that Gunns Ltd is willing to spend any sum of money on this issue (the costs of the defendents awarded against Gunns in relation to the statement of claim which was struck out is believed to be about the one million dollar mark!). I am beginning to wonder if they are being encouraged by a third party which in my opinion could be either the Institute of Public Affairs, elements within the Liberal Party or another conservative political think tank or even all of the above. I hope that they realise that the collateral damage to themselves will be immense if they continue with the action and either fail or if they suceed find that the cost of the action out weigh the compensation awarded.

The latest on the Gunns 20

The following was copied from the Wilderness Society's website. It appears they are facing two threats instead of one with the federal government looking to strip it of tax deductable status.

"As most of you will already know, in December 2004 Gunns Ltd sued The Wilderness Society, five of its staff, plus 14 other groups and individuals - now known as the Gunns 20 - for what it alleges are a series of wrongful acts. Gunns is claiming a total of $6.4 million in damages from all claims - with over $3.5m against The Wilderness Society and its officers.

We will vigorously defend the claims against us. Following a hearing on April 8, Gunns has now produced approximately 70 documents requested by the defendants. The next step is for Gunns to answer the defendants' request for further details (by June 10) about various claims in the writ so we know exactly what their claims against us are. If there are insufficient details about specific allegations, or if the law does not support the particular type of claims, the defendants can apply to have these 'struck out' - we would ask the court to order that the claims be dropped or rewritten. Formal defences do not have to be filed until after this process is complete. We'll keep you up-to-date as the case progresses. Once again, thank you - your support has been extremely heartening."

The following also urges people to write to the minister for the environment

"These unprecedented new threats have placed increased pressure on already limited resources. The most immediate and effective way you can help is by making a tax-deductible donation to The Wilderness Society. Please phone freecall 1800 030 641 or donate online using our secure server.
(A separate Gunns 20 fighting fund has been created and people can donate by calling The Wilderness Society, specifying that it is for the Gunns 20. These donations are NOT tax-deductible. Alternatively, people can donate to the Gunns 20 fund via any Greens shop or via Bob Brown (Gunns 20), GPO Box 1132, Hobart, Tas 7000.)

  • To encourage the Government to keep supporting administration grants to groups which campaign for the environment, write to Senator Ian Campbell, Minister for Environment and Heritage, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600. Urge the Minister to restore funding to enable state based environment groups, such as conservation councils, to play their vital role for the protection of Australia's natural environment.
  • To ensure that civil legal action doesn't stop our legitimate right to peaceful protest, write to your local state MP saying: You are aware of the Gunns legal action against environmentalists; that you are concerned about the impact of corporations suing community groups and individuals as this can scare people into silence and that you want them to introduce or support a Bill in parliament to protect the public's right to protest and to participate in political debate. This has been very successful in many states in the USA. "

I am of the oppinion that the law suit is a litmus test for further action against NGOs and groups that the government see as being opposed to their agenda. I would not be surprised if the government used the success of the action to do the same to the union movement and human rights/refugee groups. I also believe that this is prompted by the institute of public affairs, which is a right wing think tank / lobby group that the Coalition uses for information and support.

NGOs

Jonathon, I think you are right about IPA (Institute of Public Affairs). Their magazine (Review) published NGOs Undermining Democracy by Nahan & D'Cruz in Dec 04.

While some NGOs may be doing good, many are undermining and actually destabilising our neighbours. Others are just wasting taxpayers' money.

I'm pretty sure the Mar 05 edition has an editorial against NGOs, that is even more targeted to cutting off government funding at federal level. I can't see anything about NGOs in the Budget, though. World Vision (Tim Costello) is an NGO.

Gunns 20 update

Hi everyone,

The case so far

I have recently received an update from the "Friends of Gunns 20". All the defendents have legal representation. Seven have been able to get representation from Herbert Greer and Randall on a pro bono basis.

There has also been movement in terms of the statement of claim following a Directions Hearing during which Judge Bongiorno of the Supreme Court of Victoria made orders relating to documents referred to in the statement of claim, the provision of further and better particulars and the postponement of the need for the defendents to lodge their defences. The plaintifs were unsucessful in getting documents referred to in the statement of claim from the plaintifs, who have now been ordered to produce the documents in seven days. The plaintifs have also been orered to add details of their claim. The date for a further hearing has been set for the 4th, 5th and 6th of July. There is a chance that all or some of the defendents may make applications for the court to strike out the statement of claim. Striking out means the court could dismiss all or part of the claim. The court could do this if the statement of claim doesn't contain a cause of action or is vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process.

Co - ordination

There have been two part time staff members appointed to assist with the legal and administrative demands of the proceedings. The office is on the first floor of 61 Davey Street Hobart. It is not a campaign office but a legal resource for the defendents the office is also a source for information on what is going on with the case. The phone number is 0362248318. The office needs a number of pieces of office furniture, so if any Tasmanian readers or any readers who could send them can contact the administrative co-ordinator from the previously mentioned phone number.

The writ

Further details have been provided on the writ. It has been divided into nine actions. The details are as follows

The Lucaston Action Damages sought $700,000

Gunns Ltd allege that the defendants conspired to plan and engage in a campaign to disrupt logging operations at Lucaston in 2003 thus interfering with the plaintiffs trade and bisiness by unlawful means. The plaintifs allege that a number of defendants and other protestors (who apparently are not being prosecuted) staged a blockade of the site and halted access by logging contractors Defendents are also alleged to have locked themselves onto logging machinary. Interestingly enough the defendents affected by this action include The Wilderness Society and Huon Valley Environment Centre!

The Hampshire Action Damages Sought $370,000+

Gunns allege that a conspiracy by a number of defendents to interfere with their trade and bsiness by unlawful means in March 2004.  Gunns claim that a number of defendants and others entered a mill site with out permission and locked themselves onto various parts of mill machinary and created a blockade by standing on the road with banners thus preventing entry to the mill. They also allege tresspass, public nuisance and obstruction of the road. Gunns claim damages for the wages and labour costs during the action - including security costs. Gunns allege some defendants gained notoriety which enabled them to raise campaign funds and "further their careers as teachers and trainers of persons engaged in protest action"

Triabunna 2003 Action  Damages sought $190,000+

Gunns claim that some of the defendants and others (who yet again are not being prosecuted!) "conspired" to plan a campaign of interference with operations at the Triambunna Mill. In this claim Gunns allege some defendants entered the mill site without permission and locked onto various pieces of mill machinary. The allegations include entereing a prohibited area under the Marine & Safety Regulations Act, Hindering employees contracts, injury to Gunns trade and business through lost production time and curiously enough Conspiracy and damage to equipment.

Triabunna 2004 Action  Damages sought $180,000+

Gunns allege that some of the defendants conspired to plan an action to injure the plaintiff's trade and business by stopping operations of the mill site. Again they are claiming "Hindering employees contracts, injury to Gunns trade and business through lost production time"

The Styx Action

My reading of this section of the writ the only offence the defendants have comitted is to have campaigned against logging in the Styx valley. I feel that this is one of the most dangerous sections of the action.

Gunns claime that a number of defendants conspired to interfere with logging operations and contracts assoicated with the Styx 4A coupe by unlawful means. The conspiracy is stated to be a planned summer of protest in relation to the Styx4A coupe This incluided meetings in Sydney and Melbourne at wich Bob Brown and others spoke to encourage people to take action in the Styx over the summer of 2003-04, The defendents are also alleged to have encouraged people to participate in a protest camp where a series of tree platforms would be erected. Protestors are alleged to have attached the platforms to machinary which prevented logging operations from being undertaken. Gunns also claim that protestors remained on site despite Forestry Tasmania closing the road to the coupe off to public access.

Burnie Woodchip pile Action Damages sought $675,000

In this action Frank Nicklason made certain comments in 2002 about the potential health issues in relation to the Burnie woodchip pile. According to Gunns these comments amount to defamation. Nicklason called for a risk assessment of the woodchip pile. Guns claim that this implies that they "conduct their business without regard for the health of their employees or the community". This action is said to have injured Gunns' trade and business.

The Banksia Awards Action Damages Sought $340,000

Again the plaintiff's claim that the defendants "conspired to injure their trade and business by unlawful means through a vilification campaign" In this action the defendants are supposed to have put pressure on the foundation to withdraw the nomination of Gunns Ltd as a finalist for the award by their public comments as well as providing the foundation with information about Gunns Ltd. Evidently this action is the corporate equivilant of a footballer being resentful of not getting a Brownlow or a Dally M award, a actor not getting a logie or an oscar or a journalist not getting a Walklee award.

The Japanese Customers' action Damages sought $2450,000

In this action some of the defendants mounted a campaign in Japan criticising the Tasmanian woodchipping industry to paper companies who buy it's products. The defendants are alleged to have urged Japanese paper companies to require the plaintiffs to end the sourcing of woodchips from old growth native forests. Gunns also allege some defendents worked with Greenpeace in Japan  in approaching Japanese paper companies in a campaign criticising the plaintiff's loffing operations and logging practices in Tasmania. Gunns claims that it took considerable effort to respond to queries from their Japanese customers, which they claim emerged from joint campaign with Greenpeace (who incidentally are not being prosecuted!).

The Banks Action Damages sought $270,000

It appears that the only offence that defendants named in this action have comitted is to have actively campaigned against Gunns Ltd. The defendants are alleged to have undertook a an ethical share holder campaign at various companies AGMs. This campaign included tabling resolutions, distributing publicity materials and the organising public demonstrations in order to bringabout change to Gunns logging operations in Tasmania.

Conclusion

From what I have read thus far it appears that the real motive behind this action is to firstly create a precident - if you protest you will be prosecuted and will loose your house, reputiation and you livelyhood. This will create a climate of fear among environmentalists and the community at large. I also believe that this could also create a climate of impunaty among corporations undertaking activities that would affect the environment. It would also encourage other companies to take actions against individuals and organisations campaigning on other issues.

Secondly this action will cost the defendants - both individuals and organisations money and time. This may divert resources from other campaigns and attention from the activities of Gunns and other companies.

Finally if this law suit may provide the Howard Government with a case for changes to the tax deductable status of environmental organisations and even laws relating to protests and political campaigning. With a senate majority laws affecting this may become a reality following July 1.

For a satrical view

For a Satricial view check out the following www.ironyparty.org

Gunns 20 Defence

Hi Everyone, from what I have been told by the Gunns 20 site co-ordinator, donations to the Wilderness society for the Gunns 20 will make its way to the fighting fund providing you make it clear that that is what it is for.

Furthermore every respondant has legal representation and there is co-ordination between legal teams to ensure that every respondant has the best prospect of successfully contesting their writ. I am still in the process of discovering the role and identity of the other two plaintifs who are Heather and Robin Simons. I will also attempt to discover what their claims are.

In short everyone I hope that there is a chance that the respondants may beat the rap on some of the charges although I am still weary of what is going on.

Gunns 20

Hi everyone, I have some further information regarding the Gunns 20. The following websites are useful for those wanting more information:

www.gunns20.org
www.mcgunns.com

These websites appear to be balanced and even include a piece from the Age by Greg Barnes defending the court action. From what I have been able to discern the logging company Gunns Ltd has taken action against 20 defendents including Bob Brown, Tasmanian Greens MLA Peg Putt, Doctors for Native Forests Inc, The Wilderness Society, Alec Marr national campaign director for The Wilderness Society (TWS), Geoff Law (TWS), Russell Hanson (TWS) Leanne Minshull (formerly of TWS), Heidi Douglas (TWS), Adam Burling (Huon Valley Environment Centre), Louise Morris, Simon Brown, Helen Gee, Ben Morrow, Lou Geraghty, Neal Fennell, Brian Dimmick, Huon Valley Environment Centre Inc Peter Pullinger and Frank Nicklason.

It appears that the action is in relation to the Tasmanian Native forests campaign prior to and during the last Federal Election. This campaign is still ongoing.

I find it interesting that Gunns has resorted to legal action against the 20 defendants given that it achieved its political aims in the 2004 election. I also note in a news report that Gunns out spent The Wilderness Society by $10 for every $1 in advertising in Tasmania alone. I also note that there was a similar figure for the CFMEU. Could they not rely on advertising alone?

I have chosen to put this topic in the framing the debate section due to the fact that the debate is now being framed in the Victorian Supreme court. Should this action succeed it is possible that activists may be sued for commenting on other issues.

I will write again as soon as I have more information.

Gunns 20

Hi everyone, Here's the link to page on the Wilderness Society website that contains a little bit of info regarding the lawsuit.

Please Stay on the Case

Thanks Jonathon. Please keep us up to date with this case. The Gunns action is certainly a threat to democracy as much as it is to Tasmania's beautiful forests (not to mention the defendants.) We are in danger of having mainstream environmentalism framed as a form of treason.