By AUDREY YOUNG, Political reporter
A Government MP yesterday indicated that a surprise tough new defamation law could be changed after an outcry from Opposition parties and the Press Council.
Changes to defamation laws affecting the press in political campaigns sneaked into a bill this week.
But the chairman of the select committee that considered the legislation, Tim Barnett (Labour), indicated further changes could be made when Parliament resumes in 10 days.
A new sub-clause in the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) makes it a criminal offence punishable by up to three months' imprisonment or a $5000 fine to publish untrue statements that defame a candidate and are aimed at influencing a vote. It was inserted into the bill amid 39 pages of new provisions on Thursday night.
"I think free speech is under serious attack," said Act MP Stephen Franks, who sat on the justice and electoral committee.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said: "It is underhand, it is abhorrent to proper policymaking - 39 pages which the public have had no chance to make submissions on."
The chairman of the Press Council, Sir John Jeffries, said he was "astonished that the bill should have reached the stage it did with so little prior indication to the public of the intent of the proposed legislation."
He would place the matter on the agenda of the next council meeting, on Monday.
Commonwealth Press Union press freedom chairman Gavin Ellis said the new clauses would have "an enormously chilling effect" on the news media, and he was getting legal advice on proposing changes to the bill.
"You would have thought that at an election time, freedom of speech was even more important than it is at any other time."
But he said that if it were amended so that the offending material had to be knowingly wrong, he would not object.
"Any journalists that knowingly published something untrue would, frankly, deserve what they got.
"We're not suggesting they should be protected from telling lies but they should certainly be protected from honestly going about their job or exercising their right to an opinion."
Mr Ellis, who is also editor-in-chief of the Herald, questioned whether the clause as it stood breached the Bill of Rights.
Mr Barnett said he would happily pass on a suggested change in the clause - that would take account of intention - to the minister in charge of the bill, Associate Justice Minister Margaret Wilson.
Asked about the lack of public notice, he said media organisations had made submissions on banning pre-election opinion polls.
"It didn't take a fool to realise that would actually lead to a wider debate about influencing voters during the campaign."
Margaret Wilson refused to comment.
Green MP Nandor Tanczos, who was on the committee, said he would also support the suggested change to the proposed clause.
Mr Franks said he was the MP who secured another clause in the bill deterring candidates from publishing statements they knew to be false. Anyone who did so on polling day, or two days before, would be guilty of a corrupt act.
He said it was designed "to block the Winston Peters ploy of making startling claims too late to be checked out by investigating journalists."
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
Whanganui Weather: What to expect this weekend
'It might be wise to bring an extra layer if you’re out and about.'