Journalist's evidence 'lacks credibility'

The evidence of a newspaper columnist being sued for racial vilification lacks credibility and should be treated with caution, a court has heard.

Ron Merkel SC - acting for nine Aborigines taking the Federal Court action - said News Ltd journalist Andrew Bolt had displayed an unsatisfactory approach to giving evidence and had avoided questions during the eight-day hearing.

"Your honour should be very cautious about accepting Mr Bolt's evidence," Mr Merkel told Justice Mordy Bromberg on Wednesday.

"Little or no regard should be given to his evidence."

Mr Merkel also told the court his clients had no desire to halt debate on racial identity.

Their concern was that Bolt expressed his views about their supposed motives for identifying as Aborigines, in a personal and offensive way, he said.

It is alleged Bolt wrote articles and maintained a blog questioning why fair-skinned Aborigines identify with only one aspect of their racial mix.

Mr Merkel said Bolt's articles claimed that more political and financial gain existed if they claimed Aboriginality.

"We are not trying to prevent debate on this topic," Mr Merkel said.

"We are saying the debate Mr Bolt engaged in was unlawful."

Mr Merkel is representing Aboriginal activist Pat Eatock and eight other fair-skinned Aborigines who have taken the court action against Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times (HWT) under the Race Discrimination Act.

They are seeking an apology, a declaration the columns and blog breached the Act, an undertaking there will be no repeat publication of the material and its removal from the Herald Sun website.

The complainants object to Bolt describing them as "professional Aborigines" in the articles headlined "It's so hip to be black" and "White fellas in the black" and on blogs that appeared during 2009.

Bolt said in evidence that people who claimed they were humiliated or distressed by his views couldn't duck the debate as they had made a "political" choice.

In his summing up, Neil Young QC - for Bolt and the HWT - said Mr Merkel had misrepresented the issues.

"Your Honour has been presented with submissions that have fundamentally mis-stated the law and grossly misrepresented the evidence and facts," he said.

Mr Young maintained the case depended on a "reasonable person's" understanding of the articles and of the plain English meaning of the terms used in them.

"It's not a matter of whether one thinks an expression is rude or impolite, but whether it is likely to offend on the grounds of race," he said.

The action has been taken by Ms Eatock, former ATSIC member Geoff Clark, artist Bindi Cole, academic Larissa Behrendt, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson and lawyer Mark McMillan.

Justice Bromberg has reserved his decision.