BROADCASTING OF DEBATES OF PARLIAMENT QUESTIONED

Wanganui Chronicle, 24 June 1948, Page 6

BROADCASTING OF DEBATES OF PARLIAMENT QUESTIONED

Does That Expose Members Of The House To The Law Of L-bel?

(Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 23 Does the broadcasting of Parliamentary debates affect nembers’ traditional freedom of speech, and their immunity from actions for slander arising from what they may say under Parliamentary privilege?

This question was briefly menioned when the House of Representatives met today for the first working day after the official opening yesterday. The Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser I said those who had gone into the matter had raised grave doubts as to whether broadcasting of debates did not affect the privileges which members enjoyed since the Bill of Rights was introduced in the House of Commons. The matter would require Cabinet’s attention. The question was introducetd by Dr. A- M. Finlay (Govt., North Shore), when he gave notice to ask the At-torney-General whether he had read an article by Professor A. G. Davis, entitled “Parliamentary Broadcasting and the law of Defamation,” printed in a recent issue of the Toronto Law Journal. Dr. Findlayasked whether, in view of the opinions erpressed in the article, the At-torney-General considered it necessary to take any steps to protect and maintain the right of unlimited freedom of speech to which members of the House were undoubtedly entitled. and which had been accorded

them from time immemorial. Dr. Finlay, in a note to the question, said the argument of the learned writer of the article was that absolute immunity of members from actions for defamation in respect of words uttered in the Chamber might in the present State of the law, not apply when proceedings were broadcast.

Mr. Fraser said the Attorney-Gen-eral would give a detailed reply to the question later, but the matter was of great importance, affecting, as it did, every member of the House. It appeared that the immunity from actions for slander which applied to the House itself, to Hansard and to newspaper reports of debates, provided those reports were fair, nevertheless had its limitations. In the opinion of Professor Davis, and of others who went into the matter previously, there were grave doubts as to whether that immunity which derived from the Bill of Rights applied to statements broadcast. Parliament would have to look into the matter, which would also engage the attention of Cabinet later when a proposal would be made for dealing with the situation-