This page is a plain-English working guide to Australian defamation law in 2026. It is not legal advice. If you are facing a specific defamation threat, retain a specialist media lawyer. But every Australian journalist should know the broad shape of the law, because you will trip over it sooner or later.
The law in short
Defamation in Australia is governed by each state and territory's Defamation Act, harmonised by the Model Defamation Provisions. A 2021 reform package introduced a "serious harm" threshold, a public interest defence, and tightened the rules on concerns notices. A further set of reforms in 2024 dealt with online intermediaries.
To bring a defamation claim, a person must show that:
The material was published.
It is about them (identification).
It carries a defamatory meaning.
Since 2021, that they have suffered, or are likely to suffer, serious harm to their reputation.
All four elements must be present. A sloppy tweet about a private person that carries a defamatory imputation but causes no real damage may no longer clear the serious harm threshold. A published news report about a specific businessperson accusing them of fraud almost certainly will.
What counts as a publication
Anything you write and distribute. News articles, social media posts, emails that reach someone other than the addressee, podcasts, videos, captions, comments left under your own posts on your own platforms where you have knowledge and control.
The 2024 reforms narrowed the liability of "digital intermediaries" like search engines and social platforms, but did not change the primary liability of the author and the publisher of the original content. If you write it, you are liable.
Republication is also publication. If you quote another publication's defamatory claim in your own piece, you are republishing the defamatory matter and you are liable, unless you have a defence that works on the republication.
Identification
You do not need to name someone for them to be identified. Enough detail to point to them will do. "The CFO of ABC Ltd" identifies the CFO of ABC Ltd, even without the name.
Identification of companies: since the 2005 reforms, only companies with fewer than ten employees, or not-for-profits, can sue for defamation. Large for-profit companies cannot. This is one of the more misunderstood parts of the law.
Defamatory meaning
The court asks what an ordinary reasonable reader would take the imputation to mean. Hyperbole, context, and the overall tone of the piece are relevant. A clear joke may not carry a defamatory meaning. A seemingly careful piece that plants an innuendo may carry one.
If you are pleading your defences, you will need to argue both about what the imputation is and whether any defence applies. Do not assume the imputation the journalist meant is the imputation the judge will find.
The main defences
Justification (truth). If what you published is substantially true, you have a defence. The burden is on the defendant: you must prove the truth of the imputation, not the other way round. This is why record-keeping matters. Your notebook, your source notes, your recordings, your email trail: all of it is potentially evidence that the publication was true.
Public interest (new). Since 2021, a defence applies where the defendant can show the matter concerned an issue of public interest and the defendant reasonably believed publishing was in the public interest. This is the closest Australian law has come to the UK's Reynolds defence. It is still being tested in the courts. Early signs suggest the reasonableness test is demanding: you will need to show you approached the subject for comment, that you gave fair weight to opposing claims, and that you took care with the sources.
Qualified privilege. A defence for communications made to an audience that has a legitimate interest in receiving the information, by a person who has a legitimate duty to communicate it. Used well by the press when reporting on matters of public concern. Lost easily if malice is shown.
Honest opinion. A defence for expressions of opinion, provided the opinion is based on clearly identified facts, the facts are substantially true or protected by another defence, and the opinion is one a reasonable person could honestly hold on those facts. This is why commentary pieces must make the factual basis clear.
Fair report. A defence for fair and accurate reports of public proceedings, including court proceedings, parliamentary proceedings, and certain public meetings. Relied on constantly by court reporters.
Innocent dissemination. A narrow defence for distributors who were not aware of the defamatory material. More relevant to platforms than to working journalists.
Serious harm
Since 2021, a plaintiff must prove serious harm to their reputation, or likely serious harm. For individuals, that typically means reputational damage that has caused or is likely to cause material consequences. For not-for-profits and small companies, it means serious financial loss or likely serious financial loss.
The threshold does reduce the volume of small defamation claims. It does not make substantive claims easier to defend. A major exposé that misidentifies a suspect will almost always clear the threshold.
Concerns notices and the 28-day window
Since 2021, a plaintiff must serve a concerns notice before filing a defamation claim. The notice sets out the imputations and the harm. The publisher has 28 days to make an "offer to make amends" that addresses the complaint.
Take concerns notices seriously. A timely, reasonable offer to make amends is itself a defence if the plaintiff refuses it and the court later finds the offer was reasonable. Ignoring a concerns notice for three weeks is a legal unforced error.
Social media
Yes, you can be sued for a tweet, a Facebook post, a TikTok, a Substack note. Yes, the publisher of your social account (if you are on a commercial platform) can be brought in, though the 2024 reforms narrowed that. Yes, comments on your own account, if you had knowledge of them and did not remove them in a reasonable time, can attract liability.
The 2021 High Court decision in Fairfax Media v Voller confirmed that news publishers could be liable for third-party comments on their Facebook posts. The 2024 reforms partly amended that, but the direction of travel is clear: if you allow comments under your posts, you are a publisher of them.
Practical advice
Always keep notes and recordings. Always record the date and location of the interview.
Give the subject a right of reply in writing before publication on any piece likely to attract legal action. Preserve the exchange.
Distinguish fact from opinion in your prose. "I believe" and "it appears" are not magic words; the context still has to make the basis of the view clear.
When a concerns notice arrives, open it, read it, and respond. Call your lawyer. Do not ignore it.
Get professional indemnity insurance if you write about individuals, companies, or sensitive topics. MEAA membership includes limited cover.
Read The Journalist's Legal Guide, published by Mark Pearson and Mark Polden. Keep a copy near the desk.
Why this matters
Defamation is not a technicality. A large claim can ruin a career, bankrupt a freelancer, and sink a small publisher. A careful, well-sourced piece with a right of reply and clear defences is usually safe. A sloppy piece with a strong phrase and no paper trail is a gift to a plaintiff's lawyer.
Simon's version: "Check the name. Check the title. Get it in writing. And if you are not sure the story is bulletproof, do not run it."