Recalling Parliament just so the Government can chuck mud at the Leader of the Opposition under parliamentary privilege seems a very expensive way of going about things.
It is an admission by the Government of one of two things. Either the Government wants to say things which are untrue or unfair about Dr Hewson’s tax and business affairs or it has to admit that the defamation laws prevent legitimate discussion of matters of fundamental importance to the Australian people as they come to make a decision at a Federal election.
I think the latter is the case. The Government wants to comment about Dr Hewson but cannot because Australia’s idiotic defamation laws are too restrictive. Those laws define fair comment too restrictively, let lawyers extract all sorts of defamatory imputations out of words which say no such thing, and are burdened with staggering amounts of costly legal farnarkling that shackle free speech.
In Perth the other day the Prime Minister, after answering some questions about Dr Hewson’s tax was asked about Parliament coming back. He said, “”The Parliament is scheduled to come back in the third week in February, is it not? In that period all things will be debated.”
Why do we need Parliament to come back for this debate? Because we cannot have a debate under threat of being sued.
The Prime Minister is in an ideal position to know how the defamation laws can prevent discussion of matters pertaining to the business affairs of public figures. He knows how lawyers can extract all sorts of technically defamatory imputations out of words publicly uttered. For example, his writ against Senator Michael Baume over words uttered on Melbourne radio is on the ground that Senator Baume’s words carried the imputation that he had introduced One Nation for his personal benefit, not for the good of the nation. No doubt lawyers will get to argue this at considerable expense many months after this election is over. Yet every moron knows that One Nation was delivered with the sole purpose of convincing the Australian people that here was a Government doing its best for them.
Having served his writ, Mr Keating knows the danger of the defamation law and it aware that it is a two-edged sword. But he knows how to overcome it: by recalling Parliament, where he can have his free shot.
Of course, Parliament has other advantages for the Government. The Government has a far greater say in the running of Parliament. A Government MP is Speaker. The Speaker rules on points of order and on points of privilege. It may well be, for example, that now a writ has issued on the piggery issue, that the Speaker could be called upon to rule whether questions on it might breach the sub judice rule. The Speaker will make rulings according to Standing Orders, but like lbw decisions in cricket there must be fine-line cases where the batsman (read Government) gets the benefit of the doubt.
Question Time is great for the Government. It can waffle and side-track for a long time, while the Opposition is restricted to 15-second questions.
And thus, Parliament is to be recalled so “”all things will be debated”. The presumption in that, of course, is that if Parliament is not recalled, all things cannot be debated.
The public is thus saddled with the expense of flying in 224 MPs and assorted hangers-on so the business affairs of the two contenders for the prime ministership can be debated under privilege. It is not being recalled to undertake its primary function of being the legislative arm of the Commonwealth; the Government finished its outstanding legislative program.
It will be an expensive debate. To prevent this happening again, I have a legislative proposal that should go before this otherwise non-legislative sitting _ the Extension of Parliamentary Privilege Act 1993. Broadly, it would give absolute privilege to any Member of Federal Parliament for any thing said on radio or television and for any press statement issued under parliamentary letterhead. The MP could not be sued. Further, fair and accurate reports of those things by other media would also attract privilege.
What is the difference between an MP saying something in Parliament and the same MP saying it outside? MPs elected by the people should have the widest latitude to debate things they see are in the public interest. The defamation courts are no place for political battles.
One of the most pathetic sights I have seen (among many) in the defamation courts was the case of John Grey Gorton who began his case as Prime Minister and fought in court as a backbencher _ a wrangle over loyalty to Malcolm Fraser two years after its political significance had extinguished. Whatever Baume has said, the backfiring of a defamation action can be far more damning. No greater sting could be levelled at a politician than irrelevance.