THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1907. THE PRESS AND LIBEL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8864, 25 October 1907, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1907. THE PRESS AND LIBEL.

New Zealand boasts that it has for many years been in the van of nations in the matter of social reforms; and undoubtedly it has in many respects. But there is one question upon which the conservatism of its Legislature has been hide-bound. We refer to the law of libel as it afftcts the newspaper press. The press of this dominion is hedged about with legal restrictions which minimise its usefulness as a guardian of the public. In dealing with public abuses, in reporting the proceedings of law courts or public meetings, or in discussing questions affecting the wellbeing of the community, it is restricted in its operation by the fear of libel actions. The Old Country is far in advance of New Zealand in the privileges accorded to the press; but every effort that has been made by the journalists of the dominion for years past to liberalise the law of libel so far as newspapers are concerned has been rendered abortive by the opposition of the Government of the day. Time and again recourse has been had to the assistance of private members of Parliament to get a bill passed bringing the New Zealand law into acccrc' with the .British; but I the late Mr Seddon, for reasons of I his own, always vetoed the measure, and never showed the slightest sym- i pathy with the movement. The I result is that many matters are left untouched by the press which the interests of the country demand should be dealt with. Frequently may be seen under the heading "Notice to Correspondents" an editorial statement to this effect: "Sorry cannot publish your letter or deal with subject, owing to the present law of libel." It is even dangerous to indicate the locality of a public nuisance, because persons in the neighbourhood may assume that they are alluded to, and threaten an action for libel. They may, of course, have r,o ground to go upon; but' the mere defence of an action, however'

groundless, is a matter involving considerable expense and worry. In other countries more liberal libel laws have been of great advantage to the community, as wellas to the press, and it has not been found that ,they have been abused. Nor would they be abused here. In Australia the libel law is little less harsh upon the press than in New Zealand; but New South Wales at least has decided to make a forward movement and accord to journalists reasonable privileges in the conduct of their public duties. Mr Wade, the new Premier, at a gathering of journalists a few days ago, spoke strongly of the "disabilities under which the whole of the press suffered, owing to the state of the present law." "A man," he said, "might in all good faith insert statements in his paper—obtained, perhaps, from a public meeting—which brought him within the scope of the Defamation Act,- with the result that matters of public interest were printed at the risk and great expense of the editor. Side by side with this came attacks by people who lit d no character and nothing to lose, who attacked a newspaper against which they had some grudge. Such a condition of affairs did not occur in Great Britain, and the alteration should be required in justice and to keep abreast of the times." Mr Wade promised to bring in a measure next year to give the press the necessary relief. It is to be hoped that our Premier will fall into line with the New South Wales Premier and give the journalists of the dominion the relief they have long sought in the interests of the public as we'll as of themselves.