Production Councils And Publicity

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23789, 7 November 1942, Page 4

Production Councils And Publicity

A request by the Director of Primary Production, that district councils of primary production should exclude the press from their meetings and- prepare their own “ dis- “ creet reports ” for publication, has been reflected by the North Canterbury and the Wanganui district councils. It is to be hoped and expected that the same decision will be taken by all other councils. A memorandum in which the director supports his request lays stress on "the confidential nature” of some information supplied to councils by the Department of Agriculture and other departments. This, he says (quite rightly), necessitates “care- “ ful supervision ” of the matter opened to publication. The director, however, may be supposed to know as well as any other experienced public servant that confidential information and the discussion of it can be taken in committee; and that reporters never attempt to evade this restriction on publicity. He must know, also, that reporters and the newspapers they serve are otherwise bound by the censorship and publicity regulations and by the instructions issued under them by the Director of Publicity. But it is not at all clear that the Director of Primary Production has made this move because he has seen confidential information broached to or by the press; it is not even clear that he has asked the councils to prepare " discreet reports ” because he has reason, or thinks he has reason, to complain that reporters have written indiscreet ones. One aim appears to be to muzzle criticism. “ The proper channel” for councils to use in conveying complaints or inquiries, the director wrote, lay through the National Council—whose proceedings are not reported. In other words, if the director’s advice were to be followed, it would be followed to this result. A council might critically and usefully discuss some public issue, such as farm labour; but public interest in the discussion would not be served by journalists trained to serve it. It would be served by the council’s secretary, whose duty it would be to supply a “ discreet “report”; and that means that it would be served badly or hot at all. The council’s secretary might be a model of discretion; he could not become a reporter at the bidding of the Director of Primary Production. This question 'has special importance, since it is a fact that, again and again, press reports of discussions by primary production councils have illuminated obscure as-

pects of official policy and turned attention to developments and issues of real moment. It will not be. denied that this has been useful, or denied, either, that the process has sometimes been uncomfortable for Ministers and officials. It has not been less useful on that account, and is not less desirable. Whether the director’s attempt to check it was made on his own initiative or was prompted by the Minister of Agriculture and Primary Production for War Purposes is a question of some interest. But it is an attempt to create a separate and special censorship, without need and without authority. Official or Minister or both, whoever is responsible for it should be made to understand that the regulations administered by the Director of Censorship and Publicity and by him only are sufficient to control free speech and a free press in New Zealand,