revenue vs salaries, page-29

RB,
Since 1 January 2006 we have had uniform defamation laws throughout Australia i.e. the position is now the same in each State and Territory.
In my considered opinion your attempts to stifle legitimate scrutiny of questionable governance practise with a threat of defamation action is not helpful to our company.
Defences of truth, qualified privilege and fair comment now apply across the whole country.
To quote Georgina Schoff at p 1008 of the Fitzroy Legal Service Law Handbook 2012:
"A person may publish any comment to the world at large, provided that:
* the matter concerns a matter of public interest...
* the defamatory imputation would be understood by those to whom it is published as a comment,....
* the [alleged] defamatory imputation is based upon facts either set out in the publication or sufficiently referred to, which are true.
....[this defence] may be defeated if the plaintiff can establish malice. In the context of fair comment, malice means that the opinion was not honestly held."

The Defamation Act now actually provides a defence of 'honest opinion' (section 31)which can only be defeated if a plaintiff can establish that the opinion was not honestly held.

I don't think FactorX or Kosenar (or myself for that matter) have anything to worry about on that score. It is good that people are rephrasing and continuing to ask the difficult questions that remain unanswered. It is also good that we can have a robust debate and a sensible reasoned alternate view put forward such as that posted recently by Jukes.

I find myself somewhere in the middle. I want to remain optimistic and I have continued to buy over recent months but I also desperately want to see answers to the legitimate governance questions including those raised by the previous auditor. If he did something wrong and outside accounting profession code of conduct (as you seem to be implying) why hasn't a complaint been made to either the Chartered Institute or the Society?
Regards,