Alex White (Labour)

I understand the argument made by Senator Norris in respect of this provision. On this occasion, as on the last, I respectfully must disagree with him. As I indicated when this was discussed on Committee Stage, the widest possible latitude must be given to the media in respect of the publication of opinion consistent with fundamental principles, such as the right of a plaintiff or a citizen to challenge or, if there is a breach of the provision we shall put in place, to bring an action to court.

However, I do not agree that this section is in some way undermined or at least it is open to question in the manner in which Senator Norris says it is. I understand his argument that a newspaper, for example, could set up a defence of something it published and say in effect: "We're not claiming that this is true, but we have been told that it is, and therefore we have a good defence." That is not, in fact, what this section proposes. We are talking here about a mixture of fact and opinion. This is a section dealing with honest opinion. It is saying, in effect, that if the person who expressed the opinion can show that he or she honestly held it, however strange, excessive, radical or odd it might be, that position should be protected. That should be an important principle in our law. In fact, to date, it has been essentially what has applied. There are some changes because as Senator Regan said, the defence of fair comment is being replaced by a renamed and somewhat amended defence of honest opinion.

One cannot apply the same principles to an allegation of fact as may be applied to the expression of an opinion. They are two different things. We are right in our laws to distinguish between an honestly held expression of opinion on the hand or a statement of fact on the other. They must be characterised as two different things. Our laws traditionally have given a fair measure of protection to the expression of opinions and we should continue to uphold that, whether in the political, journalistic, financial world or whatever. If articles are written or programmes produced and aired on radio or television in which people express opinions, however odd, strange, excessive or mad, even, they may be, and we often might think something is mad on the grounds that the opinions expressed are deeply offensive, annoy, irritate or make us angry, our media law ought to allow for the expression and publication of such opinions in circumstances where they are truly and honestly held, however excessive they may be. That is what this section attempts to do.

While I do not suggest Senator Norris has done this, it would be a mistake for us in our general approach to this section of the legislation to confuse the question of a statement of fact on the one hand with the expression of opinion on the other. The law should continue to give a wide latitude to the expression of honestly held opinions.