A covert tape, political feuds and toxic soil: Eight-year defamation battle reaches end

A trial nearly eight years in the making embroiling businessmen, journalists, and both Labor and Liberal politicians has concluded following several weeks of deliberations in the West Australian Supreme Court.

Property developer Greg Poland claimed he was defamed by this masthead following the publication of two stories in 2019, which were based on a covert recording sent to journalists by federal Liberal MP Andrew Hastie.

The first story alleged Poland coached a contact on how to engineer a land swap deal with the WA government that would see “toxic soil” from a Metronet project dumped and buried in exchange for a sand mining operation.

In the recording, which has since been publicly released, Poland can be heard discussing his relationship with then-Transport Minister Rita Saffioti and former Regional Development Minister Alannah MacTiernan, and that if you do a favour for either minister, they would “just steamroll anything through”.

The second article published, also related to the recording, discussed Poland’s claims that an attempt to increase WA’s lobster catch was his plan, but the state government, including then-Fisheries Minister Dave Kelly, had “botched it”.

Since the publication of those stories, both the plaintiff and the defendants have been locked in a legal battle which culminated this week.

All three state government ministers, Hastie, and others were called in to take the stand.

The last person to provide evidence was former WA Liberal Leader Zak Kirkup, who in 2019 was working as the member for Dawesville.

He admitted he had been sent the audio, but claimed he had not listened to it.

Poland’s lawyer Martin Bennett suggested Kirkup was “discussing the recording with Andrew Hastie because it was of political benefit if there was a secret deal with Labor Party ministers” – a suggestion that was denied.

Two people then advised Poland’s solicitors that Kirkup had lied on the stand, and that he had, in fact, been “gleeful” after hearing the recording and that he had wanted to use it as a “political weapon”, with Bennett suggesting Kirkup’s evidence had been false.

Bennett suggested it proved both Hastie and Kirkup had released the recording for their own political gain and requested to reopen the case with new witnesses, and to cross-examine Kirkup again.

That request was ultimately denied by Justice Matthew Howard.

Across Thursday and Friday, Bennett and Nine’s lawyer Matthew Lewis then delivered their closing submissions.

“The stories are not flattering to Poland at all, we agree,” Lewis told the court.

“He engaged in overreach and exaggerated about his contact to Rita Saffioti and Alannah MacTiernan … He has nailed his colours to his mast.”

In written closing submissions, the defence stated Poland was “revealed at trial to be a dishonest and unreliable witness”.

“He would say whatever he perceived would advance his interests. He was unconcerned to give the court an honest account of what occurred at the meeting,” it reads.

“Parts of [his evidence] lacked any semblance of seriousness or sobriety … He was willing to improvise, embellish and alter his account as the situation demanded.”

One of Poland’s key contentions was the soil was not toxic, with Bennett telling the court that a publicly available document and a background note from then-Fisheries Minister Dave Kelly’s office and sent to journalists both supported that claim.

However, Lewis argued that Poland himself used the word toxic in the recording, and that Bennett also used the word toxic in a letter to journalists on behalf of his client before publication.

Lewis also said there were no imputations of corruption on Poland’s behalf because it was clear he would not have gained anything through the land swap deal.

Bennett argued that was incorrect.

Written closing submissions from the plaintiff states that the defendants “seize on the proposition that critically the reader is told of no benefit of any kind being attributed to Mr Poland”.

“That’s the lawyer’s analysis of the first article, not the reading of a hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader capable of reading in a real world (not ivory tower) sense,” it states.

“It is quite plainly conveyed to the reader that Mr Poland, apparently Labor-aligned and in a position of apparent authority (as Deputy Chairman of the PDC, a role to which the reader is told he was appointed by Ms MacTiernan after Labor came into power in 2017) was using his position to arrange an unorthodox, valuable deal for a local businessman, that would benefit the Labor Government.”

Bennett also said Poland had called both Saffioti and MacTiernan by their first names, which indicated a “level of closeness”.

Both politicians distanced themselves from Poland while providing their evidence and said he did not have the influence he claimed.

Justice Howard agreed, telling Bennett, “I can call Madonna by her first name, it doesn’t mean I know her well.”

He will now take time to review the evidence submitted by both sides and will deliver his verdict at a later date.

It is likely the decision will not be revealed until 2027.