Bill’s Committee Stages Postponed

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30230, 7 September 1963, Page 12

Bill’s Committee Stages Postponed

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, September 6

Because the House of Representatives’ debate on the Indecent Publications Bill this week exposed what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer) has called a “fair amount” of difference of opinion, the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee has been postponed.

All but two of the Opposition speakers in the second reading debate, and two Government members, including the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand), objected to the section of the bill which restricts the publication of the tribunal’s proceedings and decisions.

Although second reading debates are usually devoted to the discussion of the principles involved in a bill, this week’s debate was focussed almost entirely on the section which authorises the tribunal to limit reference to decisions, if it so chooses, to the Gazette and certain professional journals. There was general approval of the purposes of tihe bill and only minor discussion on other details. Before Parliament adjourned today, Mr Nordmeyer said he had some reservation about taking the co. unittee stages of the bill so soon after the second reading. The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) had said that if there were any desire to postpone the committee debate, he would be prepared to talk about it. And in response to Mr Nordmeyer’s suggestion, he said he would rearrange the Order Paper placing the bill at the bottom of the list of bills for committee consideration. This means that instead of the bill being debated again next Thursday, it may not be reached until the week after next, or later. Mr W. J. Scott (Govt. Rodney) opposed the publication section and said it was going too far and breached an important principle. He did not say whether he would vote against it or not. Mr Shand said that although he would not vote against the bill, he considered the secrecy clause "a dangerous thing” “I cannot agree on the degree of suppression of information on details of the tribunal’s decisions." he said. The Minister of Justice (Mr Hanan) had gone a long way to meet those like himself who worried about the freedom of the press. “If the newspapers publish the findings, this may have the effect of advertising a banned book. I accept this

but I think that is a risk we have to take. But to prohibit the publication of the findings of it I find impossible to accept.” Mr Shand said he agreed with nine-tenths of what Mr Hanan had said and that they agreed the present procedure was unsatisfactory from many points of view.

"I do not see any great. harm coming out of this par- i ticular suppression of the freedom of the press, but' suppression of freedom is a l very dangerous thing." This had not been done before. said Mr Shand, referring to provisions in the Divorce and Matrimonial, Proceedings Amendment Bill.. 1958. An amendment had, been dropped which would have had almost the same' effect as this provision. To the interjection of Mr | H. G. R. Mason (Opp.. ; Waitakere) that publication reduced the law to a nullity.; Mr Shand replied: "I very much doubt the validity of' that." "I might be wrong.” he; said, "but even if I am wrong. I want the House to' appreciate the risk we are taking just because it is convenient."