Newspaper industry seeks change to bill

Press, 11 December 1989, Page 4

Newspaper industry seeks change to bill

PA Wellington The newspaper industry is asking M.P.s to change clauses in the Defamation Bill, now before Parliament and awaiting its second reading. The industry sought changes to the legislation when the bill was being considered by a select committee but did not get what it wanted. The bill can still be changed at its committee stage by amendments proposed by an M.P. and voted into place, and a committee of editors has written to all M.P.S, asking them to change the proposed law. The industry says it is worried about a clause giving courts the power to order publication of corrections.

“The proposed correction order procedure will be quite unfair and probably unworkable,” the letter says.

“The clause is offensive in principle. “At present a newspaper may not be forced by law to publish anything; the proposed procedure opens the way for a hitherto-free press to ful-

fil objectives of public policy. “That is a small first step, but a crucial one, down a long and nasty road.”

The industry advocates instead the summoning of a compulsory mediation conference soon after a writ is issued — “a cheaper and prompter mechanism by which plaintiffs may seek the rectification of alleged defamation.”

Voicing another concern, the letter says the industry holds “very strong fears” that juries regard the media as fair game for damages awards on a much greater scale than that which applies to individuals or even other legal entities.

It wants juries replaced by judge-alone trials and if that fails it suggests judges should set the limit on awards. If neither of those suggestions is acceptable, it advocates a statutory cap on general damages of $25,000.

“The law is fraught with risk for all who engage in it,” the letter says.

“For the defendant, the risk is that an honest mistake may cost a huge sum; for the plaintiff, the risk is that an unsuccessful action under the law may be ruinously expensive.”

The industry considers the bill does not go far enough towards achieving a reasonable balance between protection of reputation and freedom of speech. The letter emphasises that the industry is not seeking special treatment for the news media. x

“We believe that the law should apply equally to all and that Parliament has a rare opportunity to bring this law into line with what protective and remedial law should do: that is to provide appropriate, swift and economical relief and repair,” it says.

The letter was written by the editors’ committee of the New Zealand section of the Commonwealth Press Union.

It says its views also represent the position of the Newspaper Publishers’ Association.