The Defamation Act 2005 and reform status by jurisdiction

There is no single national Defamation Act 2005. Each state and territory has its own legislation based on the Model Defamation Provisions, and the 2021–2025 reforms have commenced on different dates — or not at all — across the country.

Written by Konrad Weber · Reviewed by Andrew Foster, Review Removal Specialist · Updated 2026-10-11

The uniform scheme

In 2005 the states and territories agreed to replace a patchwork of defamation laws with near-identical legislation, the Model Defamation Provisions. The uniform Acts commenced in 2006 and abolished the old distinction between libel and slander, set out a statutory framework for defences and remedies, and capped damages for non-economic loss (the cap is indexed annually). They also abolished the right of most corporations to sue, a point explained on the business defamation page.

Changes to the model provisions are agreed by Attorneys-General and then enacted by each parliament separately. That is why "the law" can differ between Sydney and Perth on the same day.

Each jurisdiction’s legislation

New South Wales: Defamation Act 2005 (NSW)
Victoria: Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)
Queensland: Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)
South Australia: Defamation Act 2005 (SA)
Western Australia: Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Tasmania: Defamation Act 2005 (Tas)
Australian Capital Territory: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), Chapter 9 — the ACT has no separate Defamation Act
Northern Territory: Defamation Act 2006 (NT)

Stage 1 reforms (Model Defamation Amendment Provisions 2020)

Stage 1 introduced the serious harm element, mandatory concerns notices, a single publication rule, a new public interest defence, changes to honest opinion, and abolished the triviality defence. Commencement:

NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, ACT: 1 July 2021.
Tasmania: 12 November 2021 (Defamation Amendment Act 2021 (Tas), commencing on Royal Assent). Many secondary sources wrongly give 1 July 2021.
Northern Territory: 11 August 2025, under the Defamation Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT), which adopted Stage 1 and Stage 2 together.
Western Australia: not adopted as at the date of this page.

Stage 2 reforms (digital intermediaries)

Stage 2 Part A deals with digital intermediaries: conditional exemptions for caching, conduit, storage and search engine services; a new defence linked to an accessible complaints mechanism and action within 7 days of a complaint; and court power to make access prevention orders against non-party intermediaries. A separate Part B extended absolute privilege to reports made to police and certain complaint bodies. Part A commencement:

NSW and ACT: 1 July 2024.
Victoria: 11 September 2024 (Justice Legislation Amendment (Integrity, Defamation and Other Matters) Act 2024).
Tasmania: 16 June 2025 (Defamation Amendment Act 2025 (Tas), commencing on Royal Assent).
Northern Territory: 11 August 2025.
Queensland: 26 December 2025 (Defamation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (Qld), assented 19 December 2025).
South Australia: partial only, from 15 December 2025. SA adopted the non-party access prevention orders and Part B, but not the intermediary exemptions or the new intermediary defence; intermediary liability there is still governed by the common law.
Western Australia: not adopted.

Reform amendments generally apply only to matter published after they commenced in that jurisdiction. Check the commencement date against the date the review was posted, not the date you noticed it.

Concerns notices

In Stage 1 jurisdictions, a concerns notice is a precondition to suing. It must be in writing, identify the matter, particularise the imputations the aggrieved person considers defamatory, and (for an individual) state the serious harm caused or likely to be caused, or (for an excluded corporation) the serious financial loss. Proceedings generally cannot be started until the "applicable period for an offer to make amends" has elapsed — 28 days after the notice is given — and the imputations relied on in court must be those in the notice, unless the court gives leave.

If the publisher makes a reasonable offer to make amends (for example, an apology, correction and removal, sometimes with costs or compensation) and the aggrieved person refuses it, the publisher may have a defence. For anonymous reviewers, the practical problem is knowing who to send the notice to; the legal removal page explains preliminary discovery.

In Western Australia, a concerns notice can still be used to open the offer-to-make-amends process, but it is not a mandatory step before suing.

Limitation periods and the single publication rule

Defamation proceedings must generally be commenced within one year of publication. A court can extend the period to up to three years from publication if satisfied it was not reasonable in the circumstances to sue within one year. These limits are in each jurisdiction's limitation legislation (for example, the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)). Online, a review is published each time it is downloaded or read, so the Stage 1 single publication rule matters: where the same publisher republishes substantially the same matter, time generally runs from the first publication. In Stage 1 jurisdictions, the limitation period can also be extended where a concerns notice is given close to its expiry.

The practical point for a business is simple: do not let a damaging review sit for months while you decide what to do. Capture evidence immediately — the guide on evidence for review complaints lists what to keep — because the legal clock is running even while a Google complaint is pending.

What this means for Google reviews

The reforms have shifted the balance away from litigation over minor online slights. Serious harm filters out many review claims; concerns notices force early engagement; and the Stage 2 provisions place weight on platform complaints mechanisms. For most businesses, a properly prepared complaint to Google through the right channel is the proportionate first step, with litigation reserved for serious cases on legal advice. Our pricing is based on successful removals only, with no upfront removal fee.

If you are unsure whether a review is defamatory or simply critical, request a free assessment below. We will give you a straight answer about whether it is worth pursuing with Google.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Why is Western Australia different?

WA enacted the 2005 uniform Act but, as at the date of this page, has not passed legislation adopting either the Stage 1 or Stage 2 amendments. A WA claim therefore has no serious harm element and the older triviality defence remains available.

Does a concerns notice have to come from a lawyer?

No. The Acts set out what a concerns notice must contain, not who must prepare it. Because defective notices can delay or derail a claim, most people have one prepared or reviewed by a lawyer.

Can I send a concerns notice to Google instead of the reviewer?

You can send a written complaint to Google, and in Stage 2 jurisdictions that complaint is relevant to Google’s position as a digital intermediary. Whether Google is a proper defendant at all is a separate question that depends on the jurisdiction and the facts.

Is the damages cap the most I could ever recover?

The cap applies to damages for non-economic loss and is indexed each year. Damages for economic loss, such as provable lost business, are not subject to that cap, although they must be proved.

Could the law change again?

Yes. Uniform defamation law is reviewed periodically by Attorneys-General, and the remaining jurisdictions may still legislate. Treat any summary, including this one, as accurate only at its stated date.