23 As to para 8.4.2 the words referred to are not, of themselves, said to be defamatory of the plaintiff. Rather they are criticised because they are said to convey that the plaintiff had, as a consequence of his membership of an office in the WA Liberal Party, received unjustified and excessive remuneration in a public position. If the article is capable of conveying those meanings that, on its own, is not in my opinion capable of giving rise to an inference of malice. While the article does quote an Opposition spokesman on accountability as suggesting that "Liberal Party QC's earn enough already without adding perks at the expense of taxpayers" that is coupled with a denial, by the plaintiff, that he had been appointed because of his Liberal Party connections and the reporting of his comment that the Centenary of Federation Committee had a bipartisan approach. There is consequently nothing, in my opinion, in an article of that kind, bearing in mind Mr Birmingham's status as a public figure, which could arguably give rise to an inference of malice on the part of the newspaper. Were the position otherwise then, it seems to me, an inference of malice might arise in virtually every instance in which criticisms were made or published by a newspaper in respect of public figures.