“Retraction Of Libel May Have Seemed Weakness”

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30192, 25 July 1963, Page 12

“Retraction Of Libel May Have Seemed Weakness”

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, J y 24. The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) did not offer to retract a libel on a trade unicm officer because he was advised that it might be interpreted as a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. This was explained to the House of Representatives today by the Attorney-General (Mr H - ’ an).

In the absence from the house of Mr Shand, Mr L nan answered a question on the subject from Mr S. A. Whitehead (Opposition, Nelson).

Mr Whitehead's question was whether Mr Shand sought the advice of the Solicitor-General in respect of the libel act on against him, the settlement of which involved the payment from public funds of £llB6. If so, Mr Whitehead asked, was he prepared to indicate the general tenor of that advice?

Speaking to a point of order, Mr Hanan said as the question involved disclosing the opinion of the SolicitorGeneral, it was open for the Minister to raise a point of order that it was not appropriate for the opinion to be cited in Parliament. Authority for this was contained in May’s “Parliamentary Practice.”

Although the Minister had a right to refuse the information, he elected to volunteer The Speaker (Mr Algie): Before the Minister elects to volunteer, I must point out that if he were asked to disclose the opinion he could refuse, but all he needs do is give an indication of a general nature, which is all that is asked. Mr Hanan: The Minister has nothing to hide. The Minister did seek the advice of the SolicitorGeneral when he received a letter demanding a public apology and a substantial

sum in compensation, Mr Hanan added. The Solicitor-General advised that unless it could be proved that Mr McKenzie (the union official to whom the statement was addressed) had personally instructed or encouraged freezing workers not to carry out the terms of their award in respect of work over the Christmas period, the telegram which contained the statement would be regarded as defamatory. Mr J. Mathison (Opposition, Avon): Did the SolicitorGeneral agree with the Cabinet or the -Government that public money should be used to pay libel costs of the Minister? Mr Hanan: The answer to this question must be yes, because the payment is perfectly legal and has been validated by the Controller and Auditor-General.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer): Why diu not the Minister make an

immediate retraction and thus save the community the expense of solicitors’ and other costs which amounted to over £1000? “The reason is that the Minister consulted with the officers of his department, with his Cabinet colleagues a..d other persons, including leading trade unionists who had knowledge of the circumstances of this strike,” said Mr Hanan. “The question was whether the Minister should tender an apology thereby reducing the risk of an action for damages, and, at that stage, retreat from the stand he had taken and might well be interpreted as a sign of weakness on the part of the Government.

“Where did the public interest lie? After taking the advice, particularly of leading trade unionists, he thought the publ'C interest would be served by evidencing the Government’s determination to see that awards and contracts of emp’ >yment freely entered into were honorably carried out.” Mr Whitehead: Could the Minister tell the House whether, in future, he can expect the Minister to accept advice given to him which will save the country from having to pay out further sums in this way? Mr Hanan: I am sure the Minister of Labour will continue to act as one of the most efficient and successful Ministers of Labour the country has had.