The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1949. Abuse of Government Powers

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25969, 24 November 1949, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1949. Abuse of Government Powers

Mr' W. Appleton, National candidate for Wellington Central, deserves the thanks of the public for having the Government’s election broadcasting arrangements closely examined. Although he has found that he cannot take action in the Supreme Court to restrain the Prime Minister from monopolising the country’s broadcasting system on the evening before the poll, he has done the next best thing. He has obtained legal opinions from two “ eminent counsel ” amply confirming the judgment of ordinary fair-minded citizens—that the broadcasting arrangements are in fact an abuse of Ministerial powers. As we have pointed out before, there are ways in which the final election addresses could be broadcast without conferring any marked advantage upon either party. A broadcasting authority not under political control would certainly have chosen one of these methods rather than that decided upon by the Government. A Government which wished to be scrupulously fair would have chosen one of these methods.

No one, however, can believe now that this Government has any regard for the principles of fair play. It is not only in the use of the country’s broadcasting facilities—bought and paid for out of taxes and licence fees of National as well as Labour supporters—that the Government is guilty of “ arbitrary and discrimin- “ atory exercise of administrative “ functions ”, With their monthly warrants, social security beneficiaries are now receiving copies of a pamphlet, “ Ten Years of Social “ Security in New Zealand ”, which has come from the presses of the Government Printer. An illustrated brochure printed for the State Hydro-electric Department by a private printing firm is also being circulated. There may be a case for informing the public, by Government pamphlet, on both of these subjects; but here, again, a Government which wanted to be scrupuJously fair to its opponents and which saw the need to be clearly beyond suspicion of using public funds for party political purposes would have timed the issue of the pamphlets differently. Even if the pamphlets were completely factual, contained no tendentious arguments, and placed no more emphasis upon achievements than upon weaknesses and shortcomings, this would be the wrong time to issue them; but they are not so unexceptionable, by a very long chalk. The present .Government has done this sort of thing before; but it is obviously getting bolder—or more desperate—with each successive election. Clearly its members nothing wrong in using public funds to keep themselves in power. In Parliament and outside, they have defended their right to discriminate against their opponents in the use of publicly-owned broadcasting facilities. Electors would be wise to reflect that from unfair discrimination in broadcasting rights it is not such a very long step to denying the opposition any broadcasting rights whatever.