EVENING SESSION.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVIII, Issue 167, 18 July 1914, Page 8

EVENING SESSION.

DEFAMATION BILL.

Oca resuming at 7.30 p.m., The Hon. Mr HERDMAN pro•oeeded with his explanation of the Defamation Bill. Members of Parliament were protected from defam«riaan by utter anocs in the House, «.nd matter published in the course oi pdicial proceedings was also privileged. It was provided that fair and aec'fcrato reports of Parliament, pubhe meetings, court proceedings, etc., •wsfce also privileged. ]It was a defence that the matter of defamation ■ -wafr true in the ease of spoken words. It was a good. defence to prove that wards were used on an occasion and in circumstances when the person defamed was not likely to suffer injury thereby. No person would be liable ta criminal pnoceediiigß in the case or oral defamation. Provision was made.'for a magistrate to deal with, infoTTnations of defamation, and if a prims, fecie ease was made out ag&inet the ke.'oouid elect ■tcl. be dealt with summarily and sub- ! ieefced to a fine not exceeding £50. I The proprietor, publisher, or editor of ■» T^-TiTdioal was not criminally respar^!^" for dofamatory matbei-pub-lisn*vi. v;ithrnrk h-is kr>oT.-lp?].rro and •svitho!!^ rirjrjig-iioa on Jiis pnrt. xW

employer \ras not responsible i\>r Llie j sale of a. book or public:tinil contain- ! ing defamatory -r^^-jcv W ')■*> 'K-"-r- < vant, unless it was proved tnat tne defamatory matter habitually appeared in such publication. Sir Joseph WARD said that the Bill was an important one, affecting public life, private life, and the homes of the people. He opposed clause 28, which protected a proprietor from criminal prosecution for ;defarnatkm where the matter complained of was inserted without liis ; knowledge. This Bill threw the onus of proof upon the injured party j 'and that was not fair. He was not going to accept the proposals because they were' ■approved in Australia or Tasmania. Tfcie passage of the Bill j would play into the hands of wealthy j men, who could afford to take risks. | He wanted to know: Arc proprietors of reputable journals asking for the Bill? What need was there for iwidening the law? He did nbtt think that proprietors had applied for a change, nor was it necessary. Mr LEE (Oamaru) said that a change in the.law had been asked for by the press j of New Zealand. The 'papers at the present, time did not know how far to go,'''and naturally kept upon the safe side, with, the result that many things were not mentioned which should come before the public. He dealt at considerable length, with the effect of the law passed by the Liberal Government, and urged that the Bill gave a man who could prove tho truth for the public benefit a fair chance, which was denied to him under the old law. Mir HAN AN (Inverca.rg.ill) said that a special power was being given to newspaper proprietors, which was not extended to other individuals: It was wrong that the door should be I opened to the. publication of an inj famous 'libel. He quoted the OomV monvvealth Attorney-Genera) as strongly opposed.to the freedom proposed. • The press should not be encouraged to hold up.,public men to scorn au'd ridicule, The weight of j contradiction was no remedy for '■ruination of a man's character. Mr McCALLUM (Wairau) said -that the arguments put forward by Sir Joseph Ward and Mr Hanan were unanswerable. At', present thorp was not a single, instance of hardship suffered by the. press of New Zea.la.nd. Instead "of giving extended privileges to the press they should be curtailed. Mr RUSSELL (Avon) gave instances of attacks, which could b© made upon public men. It wais not fair that a report should be published of 1 infamous statements. by a man of straw at a public meeting. Theire was no proof whatever that) newspapers were suffering hardships through the present law. Tlio'Minuij ter had not shown that « change in j the/ law was necessary. Under the ! law1 at present the first thing <&. 'man 1 had to do who slandered {another man ' was to prove thai his action was in [ the public interest. Unless pro- ! tecbejd men would fight shy of public (life.

The Hon. Mr HERDMAN, in reply, claimed that the Bill advanced the public interests and was a distinct advancement on the present law. It was an advantage that people should be able ,to read1 reports of a public meeting, and the press should be able to publish anything that was in the public interest. The piress was bound by that reservation. Reports of meetings of local authorities could be published now, and,whys not reports of public , meetings, so long as they were fair and accurate andi in the public interest ? Miscortbeption. existed regarding clausie 28.A newspaper ' proprietor was not criminally liable for matter published in hia paper without his knowledge, but ho, was not relieved from civil liability. _. ,V, On the motion for the second reading a division was called for, and the motion was' carried by 33 to 21. Tlie House ro.se at 11.30 p.m.