“M.P.’s LIABLE FOR DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22664, 15 June 1948, Page 6

“M.P.’s LIABLE FOR DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS”

(P.A,) AUCKLAND, June 14. When proceedings of the New Zealand House of Representatives are broadcast members of Parliament who make defamatory statements may not be immune from action in civil courts. This issue is raised by Professor A. G. Davis, Professor of Law at Auckland University College, in a paper contributed to tile University of Toronto Journal, He points out that the system of Parliamentary broadcasting is covered by no specific legislation and suggests that at best members of Parliament enjoy only qualified privilege for statements of a defamatory nature that are broadcast front the floor of the House. If Professor Davis’ opinion were sustained by the courts it would challenge a principle of law that has applied since the Bill’ of Rights was enacted in 1689. This in effect provided that no action would lie against a member of Parliament for defamatory statements made in the House. Two Urgent Questions The implications of the 300-year-old law have been emphasised on several occasions in New Zealand when persons who considered themselves slandered in Parliamentary debates have invited the speakers to repeat their remarks outside the House This would have provided an opportunity for court action to obtain redress. Professor Davis sets out two questions which lie regards as urgent: Do members of tire Legislature enjoy absolute privilege in respect of words spoken in Parliament and communicated by radio to the outside world which applies when the words are not broadcast?

Does a radio station providing the mechanical means of broadcasting the words incur any liability for defamatory statements broadcast in the course of a debate? Arrangements for Parliamentary broadcasting were made in the most perfunctory manner, he states. When it was returned to power in 1935 the Labour Party carried out a promise by equipping the Lower Chamber for broadcasting in the interval between the election and the assembling of Parliament in March, 1936. He had been unable to discover on whose authority this scheme was carried out. Not Authorised by House

Certainly the House of Representatives passed no resolution authorising the work to be done or authorising the broadcasting of debates. “One might have expected the matter to have been submitted to a vote of the House, especially as the question of privilege was involved,” Professor Davis continues, “or if the Labour Party was so anxious to carry its election promise into effect and have the apparatus installed before Parliament assembled one might have expected the Speaker, on behalf of the House, to have consented to tlie work. At that time, however, the House lacked a Speaker.”

The position was, therefore, that tire House of Representatives had not at any time passed any resolution authorising the broadcasting of its proceedings nor had any Act of Parliament been passed to authorise the broadcasts or to provide immunity for individual members, the Crown, or Minister of Broadcasting for any defamatory words broadcast during proceedings of the House.

The question was whether the absolute privilege conferred on members of Parliament in respect of their statements would obtain if they spoke not merely to those present in the Chamber but to members of the public at large who tuned in to the appropriate wavelength. It was submitted that the answer of the Court should be that a member and the broadcasting service enjoyed not absolute but at best, qualified, privilege only. This meant that a plea of privilege could not be sustained if malice were proved on the part of the speaker. Broadcast of Full Proceedings

After quoting extensively from legal opinions and case law in support of his contention. Professor Davis says that if the broadcasting service did not enjoy immunity attaching to the Crown it might also find itself liable for a defamatory statement in the House because it had not broadcast the whole of the proceedings. The position might arise of a member making a prima facie defamatory statement, broadcast, say, at 10.29 a.m., which was nullified by a statement made at 10.31 p.m. after the broadcasting service had closed downProfessor Davis adds that if it were desired to continue the broadcasting service and at the same time retain the absolute privilege of members of the House the Legislature should provide this privilege. It had done so in 1689 in respect of words spoken and heard only in the Chamber. It could provide a similar privilege today for words heard outside through the means of radio.