There was Joe Hockey, confidently strutting his intergenerational stuff on Monday night’s Q&A.
His defamation case was still on foot in the federal court, but did he act like a man whose reputation had been shredded? At least outwardly, it was the same confident, cocky, if not too brilliant, Joe. Fairfax’s story and associated commentary barely seem to have left a mark.
It is one of the puzzling mysteries of defamation cases that politicians are required to claim their reputations are damaged because the media has been beastly to them. They even come to the court armed with references from other members of the political class attesting to their nobility.
I can’t think of an instance in living memory where I would say a defamatory publication, sued on by a significant politician, has put a serious dent in their public standing or reputation: Arthur Calwell, John Gorton, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Tony Abbott, Peter Costello?
An award of damages is supposed to be the tonic to restore their public standing and get them back on their feet. In this instance, Hockey is asking for over $1m so that the public will think better of him. An award of that order is justified, according to his lawyers, partly because the defendants rigorously cross-examined him and caused him more distress.
By the by, it’s a mystery how reputations are restored in the large number of cases that are settled and where there are undertakings that the settlement figure will not be revealed.
There is also the hurt factor, because part of the case for damages rests on the hurt felt by the wounded party. In Hockey’s case, one would have thought the appropriate response to hurt feelings would be to get over it. After all, it’s his government that sought to do away with section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which Abbott called a “hurt feelings test”.
The witnesses have gone, the submissions finished and now it’s up to the judge to prepare his reasons and findings. In the meantime, the Hockey defamation case does present some pressing issues for the media and its ability to report aspects of political life in this country.
If a painstakingly researched article on a matter of clear public interest and importance can attract damages of the quantum sought by Hockey, then journalists may as well pack-up and go home.
Read Richard Ackland’s full opinion – with hyperlinks – The Guardian, here
