Increasing Pressure For Change In Law Of... (Press, 3 October 1972)

On 3 October 1972, increasing calls for changes to New Zealand’s defamation laws have been highlighted by various figures including politicians and lawyers. Prime Minister Mr. Marshall expressed his belief that the current defamation legislation is excessively protective, particularly towards public figures. He remarked that if he initiated legal actions against every individual who spoke against him, he would be financially well-off. In a similar vein, Mr. M. A. Pattison, a director at Wilson and Horton Ltd, described the law as overly restrictive, arguing that it compromises freedom of expression. The newly established New Zealand Legal Association convened in Christchurch to discuss these prevailing issues. While the specifics of their discussions were confidential due to professional ethics, a public statement was anticipated afterwards. Topics on the agenda likely included recent defamation suits involving prominent personalities, including claims for damages lodged by public figures like Mr. Brian Brooks and Dr. A. M. Finlay. Also noteworthy was the recent withdrawal of a threatened lawsuit by Labour MP Mr. N. V. Douglas against Mr. Muldoon for alleged racial incitement. Critiques of the current defamation law assert that it renders public figures unduly sensitive, with Mr. A. W. James from the University of Canterbury posing that politicians in New Zealand are excessively reactive compared to their British counterparts, where robust debate and criticism are common. In Britain, the prevalence of political discourse and a lower inclination to pursue legal action allows for a more vigorous exchange of ideas. James advocates for a similar approach in New Zealand, stating it seems unreasonable for politicians to resort to legal action when they can respond publicly. Professor G. W. R. Palmer, visiting law professor at Victoria University, likewise criticises the framework of New Zealand defamation law, arguing that it stifles public debate and shields politicians at the expense of public interest. He points out the contrasting protections offered by the American Constitution for those making defamatory statements against public figures. Defenders of the existing legal standards claim that they safeguard individuals' rights against baseless and malicious statements, essential for maintaining character integrity. They maintain that any freedom of expression remains valid when practiced within parameters of truth and decency. The current defamation structure is grounded in both common law and the Defamation Act 1954, which serves to clarify certain ambiguities. Legal protections encompass both libel and slander, and various defences exist, such as truth and fair comment. However, concerns have been raised regarding the chilling effect on investigative journalism, as the difficulty in securing justification for potentially defamatory statements can inhibit reporters. The advocates for change suggest that the laws are overly punitive and propose amendments to allow free discourse on matters of public interest without the looming threat of litigation, shifting the onus onto plaintiffs to substantiate claims of falsehood or recklessness in statements made. Palmer believes allowing for rebuttals in the same medium as the original accusations would foster a fairer public discussion and ultimately serve the community better.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand