PRIVILEGE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20025, 5 September 1930, Page 17

PRIVILEGE.

BREACH BY NEWSPAPER. FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE. U'BSSa ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, September 4. In the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr Speaker reported he had written to the editor and publisher of the "Daily Telegraph," Napier, informing him of the resolution passed by the House in connexion with a breach of privilege, and drawing his attention to the words of which the complaint had been made. They appeared in a paragraph headed "Deliberately Lying," and referred to Mr W. E. Barnard, member for Napier. A similar letter had been sent to Mr S. J. McKoc, a meirfber of the Hawke's Bay Hospital Board, who was alleged to have made the statement reported by the "Daily Telegraph." Apology Tendered.

In reply, Mr Trevor M. Geddis, editor and publisher of tho "Telegraph," said in the first place he offered the House of Representatives his sincere apologies for. the publication of any words that might constitute a breach of privilege, whether against the House or against Mr Barnard as an hon. member of the House. While making this apology, he stated no breach of privilege or any libel had been intended. Owing to his absence the particular report had not received his personal scrutiny. He had subsequently fully in' vestigated the matter, and as a result was led to believe that the words were a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of the Ilawke's Bay Hospital Board. The meeting had been reported by the chief reporter for his journal, whom he considered highly competent and reliable in the art of local body reporting. Further, he considered that the subject matter, unemployment, and Mr Barnard's actions in the matter, related to matters of public concern, and publication thereof ■was for tho public benefit. Such being the case, no action in the ordinary way vould lie against tho newspaper, but from tho published report of the dobate in the House on the question it seemed that the protection granted to newspapers under the law of libel did not extend to matters of privilege under the customs and precedents of the House. The difference between the law of libel and Parliamentary privilege had not been appreciated by him. Mr Geddis asked Mr Speaker to assure Mr Barnard that his company and himself did not wish to associato themselves with the opinions expressed by pny member of the Hospital Board. Should the House decide that the full report of the discussion in the House already given by the "Telegraph" insufficient, he would be most happy to publish such further statement as might be necessary.

Mr McKee's Letter. The letter from Mr J. S. McKee stated that at the meeting of the Hawke's Bay Hospital Board lie had made a short speech, in which, as far as he could recollect, lie had said: "Mr Barnard's statement 011 the floor of tho House was defeating the object of Mr Priest's remarks made at the Board meeting. Mr Priest offered 12s Gd per day and found, not 12s 6d per week and found, as had been quoted from 'Hansard' by a previous speaker. It is unfortunate that tho statement in 'Hansard' is not -a correct tSpflfrt of what was .actually said by M? Priest. We look to "Parliament, the highest authority in "the land, to do what is right, and .this kind of thing reflects on the ability of men who are elected to duties on public bodies. If Parliament cannot give us correct statements it is little use having a Government at all. In my opinion, twenty business men could run this country better and with less expense. It looks as if 'Hansard' could be used (i.e., in the future) to bolster up a bad case."

Use of Words Denied. Mr McKeo's letter continued: "I did not use the objectionable words reported in the 'Daily Telegraph.' I had no intention of accusing Mr Barnard of deliberately misquoting Mr Priest's offer, but I was sorry that such a statement had got into 'Hansard,' where Mr Priest could not have it corrected. For this reason I considered it only fair to Mr Priest that the general public should know the actual -offer he made. My remarks, therefore, were directed to a comparison between the 'Hansard' report and the actual offer made by Mr Priest, and I very much regret that my words should have been reported in such a way as to suggest that I was making an attack on Mr Barnard." Editor's Explanation Accepted. The Hon. E. A. Ransom moved that the explanation of Mr Geddis should be accepted, and that in his case no further action should be taken.^ . Mr Barnard said that from his point of view the editor's explanation was entirely satisfactory. Ho did not, however, agree with the remark concerning immunity under the law of libel.

The motion was carried. Mr McKee's Case,

It was decided that the explanation received from Mr McKee was unsatisfactory and evasive, and that in view of the testimony of the editor and publisher, of the "Daily Telegraph" as to the accuracy of the report, Mr McKee should be given an opportunity of making a further explanation before the caso. is finally dealt with.