LIBEL LAW.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16606, 18 July 1914, Page 12

LIBEL LAW.

GOVERNMENT'S DEFAMATION | BILL.- ! CRITICISM OF EXTENDED PRIVILEGE. OPENING FLOOD-GATES OF SCURRILITY. [From Our ConitEsroNDKNT.] WELLINGTON, July 17. The. Defamation Bill of last year was referred to the Statutes Revision Committee,but time was too brief for the House to deal with it, explained the Hon A. L. Herdman in moving the second reading ol tho presatic Bill,; widen, lie said, was with tho exception' of ono or two minor alterations the same Bill. He went on to point out 'that the New Zealand law ot defamation had not kept pace with the law of other countries. For instance, the law in Tasmania, Queensland' and England relating to newspaper reports was much more liberal than the law of Mew Zealand, and an effort was being macio to improve tho present statute on tho subject. If the Bill became law, those engaged in joucualism and tho public generally would have a concise statement before them relating to the law of libel and slander. The Bill also attempted to draw the line between tho criticism allowed on a man in his public capacity and the privacy ho was cnti-. tied to regarding his character as a private citizen. It differed from last year's Bill in so far that a right of action was given in the case cf damaging statements to a man concerning his dead father or other deceased member of his family. Tho public were entitled to have a true and faithful record of any public meeting, therefore such reports were to be privileged. ': Mr Hanan: Does that carry the right of comment? Tho Minister: Comment may take placo on what happens at meetings. A qualified privilege was also given in such cases as employers'making statements regarding the character of servants. A clause had been included to prevent speculative actions by impecunious people. Tho House would be specially interested in the clause which prohibited criminal proceedings in cases of slander or oral defamation. So-little did thev think of oral defamation m England that only in cases where reflections were undo nrtnn womrm could fiction bo taken unless the plaintiff could wove spccml damage. Yvords were * stated hurriedly perhaps, but when n man wrote something defamatory it was in cold blocd and a much graver offence. The sections which relieved printers, publishers and editors of publications from responsibility for publication of. defamatory matter applied only to criminal, not civil, proceedings. The greater part of the Bill was law in Queensland, Tasmania and England, and it was sought to harmonise the New Zealand law with those Acts.

SIR JOSEPH WARD'S CRITICISMS. Sir Joseph Ward complained that tho Bill gave too great a liberty'to unscrupulous people to publish .slanderous statements regarding public men. It -was intended to protect editors' and newspaper proprietors from criminal proceedings for publishing tho most vile and diabolical statements by simply saving that they did not know about it. Tho late Mr Seddon wisely legislated to remove privilege, in cases where there were than tyventy persons at a meeting, but this 'was to-be restored. „u , ' The Minister of Justice: There has been no prosecution under it. Sir Joseph Ward: That is a very good reason whv it should be retained. The leader of the Opposition went on to say that it was proposed to so alter the law as to allow a disreputable .person for a consideration to libel a public man and throw the onus upon the •public man, not tho libeller, of proving in a Court of Justice that the libel was untrue. The Minister: You are wrong. Sir Joseph Ward denied that he was wrong. The law was to be put in such a condition that no man would be imhiuno from tho actions of /people willing to accept nayment to fihel.others, and it would result in keeping the best men out of nublic life. "I don't believo the Press of this country have applied for this alteration, and I don t believe there is any need for it/ said Sir Joseph, adding: "I recognise that upon the whole we have a very line Press in this country, yet,l am .not prepared to see such an alteration as to make them immune, so to speak, from the consequences of any malicious action."

REMOVING MISAPPREHENSION. Mr Lee expressed the opinion that the Bill had undoubtedly been asked for by the, Press of the dominion. He agreed with Sir Joseph Ward that generally speaking, though severe at times on public men. the Press of Now Zealand was fair aiid honest and seized of its responsibilities. At the. present time, however,. it was not sure how far it could go, for which reason reports of proceedings which often should be published were suppressed owing to the risk of libel actions. If the Bill went through, no' misapprehension would remain as to the dire effects likely to follow a publication so long as it was fair and accurate. When tho Bill was before the Statutes Revision Committee last year much evidence was taken and general saisfaction was expressed with tho measure, which, ho hoped, would become law without material altera1011*THE EVIL OF IMMUNITY.

"A person who makes a defamatory statement at a public meeting is liable and he is liable, if he publishes it afterwards, yet a newspaper proprietor is immune if ho publishes a. fair and accurate report of the slander uttered at tho meeting," said Mr Hanan. "A person may make a most lying and slanderous statement at a public meeting and yet tho newspaper proprietor may circulate it broadcast to infinitely more injury to the defamed person than the original statement. It is a most infamous thing to open the door to newspapers publishing what may be infamous and slanderous lies. If a statement is slanderous, why should it. be worth publishing? Is it in the interests of the public? ' And what is the good of a mero contradiction for perhaps the ruination of a man's character?" "Many able men will not face public lifo because of the scurrility they would have to enduro, and this Bill throws open the flood-gates," declared Mr M'Callum.

Mr G. W. Russell urged the Government not to use its majority to further open the door to the scandalmonger and the libeller. The newspapers were protected by a healthy public opinion, and no circumstances, had arisen which showed that they did not possess a fair and healthy right of comment. THE MINISTER'S DEFENCE. In reply, the Minister of Justice contended 1 that newspapers ought to have full, liberty of reporting public meetings. They were still bound by the limitation that the report rauit be in tho public interest. . Under the Act passed by Sir Joseph Ward local bodies' meetings were privileged. Why not public meetings, in reporting which they now ran risks? There had been no outcry, in any of the countries whero this legislation existed. In freeing the newspaper proprietor from criminal responsibility they were not freeing the man actually responsible. Mr Davey: The sub-editor P

- The Minister: Yes. Whoever inserts the defamatory matter.

Mr Davey: An employer is responsible for the acts of his servant, '

Tho Minister: Yes, civilly. On a division the Bill was read a second time bv 33 votes to 21. Tho following is the division list:— Aves (33)—Messrs Allen. Anderson, J. Bollard, R, Bollard, Bradney, Campbell. Dickson, Escott, Fisher, Fraser, Guthrie, Harris, Herdman, Herries, Hine, Hunter, Leo. Malcolm, Marnier, Alossev, Newman, Nosworthy, Okey, Pearee, Reed, 11. H. Rhodes, T. W. Rhodes.. Scott, F. if. Smith, Stathnm, Svkes, G. M. Thomson and Wilson. Noes (21)— Messrs Atmoro, Buxton, Colvin, Craigie. Davey, Ell, Forbes, Glover, Hanan. M'Catlum, M'Combs, MacDonald. Payne. Poland, Robertson, Russell, Sidey. VeiLch, Webb and Witty and Sir Joseph Ward. Pairs—Ayes: Messrs Young, Bell and Wilkinson and Sir W.Buchanan. Noes: Messrs Dickie, R. M'Kcnzie, Seddon and Isitt.