David Norris (Independent)

Getting back to the matter at hand, with the permission of Senator Walsh, one of the matters about which I was worried was that it seemed it was possible that someone might preface their words by saying, "In my opinion", and I referred to a comedienne at the time who was using "allegedly" to protect herself against libel.

We also ought to remember that there are people being defamed. Whether they are small men or women, fat men or women, or tall men or women, we should remember that there is an object of this defamation. There is also always the horrible prospect, which my good friend Senator Walsh may find too horrifying to contemplate, of perjury. They could be lying. As any good geologist will say, schist happens. This does occur from time to time.

In addition, I am a little confused about section 18(2)(b)(ii), which states that an opinion is honestly held if it was based on allegations of fact to which the defence of absolute privilege or the defence of qualified privilege would apply if a defamation action were brought. I am not a legal practitioner and I wonder whether that means that a judge, acting outside his or her court, would be capable because it just says in circumstances where that qualified privilege exists. Does that parallel allow certain professions to come outside the operation of their professional life? I am a little concerned about the lying aspect of it.

On the contribution of Senator Harris, I prefaced my earlier remarks, which possibly he may not have heard, by stating that the fire in my belly had been diminished quite a bit by precisely the action to which he referred, namely, the Sunday World case. I do not want to trespass on the matter of the separation of powers, but it seems to me that that very substantially weakens the kind of case that people like me were trying to make honestly.

At the end of the day, as Senator Harris will be aware, the Government side will win on this. Whatever they have decided is going to happen, but it is important for those of us on this side of the House or people who have an honest disagreement. Returning to my warm friendship with Senator Walsh, undisturbed by the moral issues or his gallantly protective nature, we all raise these issues in an attempt to clarify legislation.It is important that in these matters, particularly where the Government will inevitably win any vote, despite Cheltenham, that people act as advocatus diaboli, which one sometimes does. I am glad to have provided the opportunity for Senator Harris. I will discuss the other matter with Senator Walsh over a strong cup of coffee, with which he needs to be fortified.