Actew Corporation has a fairly good reputation for sensitivity to the environment, efficiency as a service deliverer and being a good employer. Indeed it has won awards to that effect. But every large organisation attracts it critics. Some would disagree with the assessment of whether it deserves its reputation. Actew has 1200 staff and it would very surprising if one or two could not be found who are dissatisfied. Actew has 300,000 customers and service receivers and once again one would be bound to find some critics, and critics who are willing to voice their criticisms publicly, in the letters column and on the airwaves.
Actew also has a very strong public critic in the form of the NSW Liberal Member for Burrinjuck, Albe Shultz, whose electorate takes in the Murrumbidgee downstream from Actew’s main sewage-treatment plant. Mr Shultz has been caught several times exaggerating the extent and effect of rare plant by-passes of partially treated sewage in times of high flood when they have little or no effect.
The public discussion of the matter has painted Mr Shultz as an irresponsible exaggerator. But Actew is not satisfied with the remedy of public debate. It has threatened Mr Shultz with action for defamation. Presumably, he will call on public funds to defend the action.
Well, if Actew wants to damage its reputation as a good corporate citizen, that is a very good way to go about it: setting the lawyers upon its critics. Misspending what amounts to public funds on a courtroom charade.
Actew is big enough to defend itself against its critics … however, misguided or wilful … in the domain of public opinion.
Its use of the defamation laws is childish and bound to erode its otherwise good reputation.