Closure Applied After Sharp Debate On News Bill

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30886, 20 October 1965, Page 1

Closure Applied After Sharp Debate On News Bill

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, October 19. The reappearance of the News Media Ownership Bill in Parliament this afternoon touched off a noisy debate during which the Opposition strove to “talk out” the committee report. The Labour Party bid failed. At 5.15 p.m., the Minister of Customs (Mr Shelton) moved the closure on further discussion.

Amid cries of “gag” from Labour benches, members divided, to approve the closure by 38 votes to 30.

The Chief Opposition Whip (Mr H. L. J. May) questioned the right of the Attorney-General (Mr Hanan) to vote on the measure, because it had been reported he held shares in a local newspaper.

He appealed to the Speaker (Sir Ronald Algie) for a ruling under Parliament standing orders.

Sir Ronald Algie said he understood that “the person involved” did not hold the stock in his own right, but in common with others.

As Mr J. G. Edwards (Opp., Napier) shouted, “This is the onrush of Nazism,” division bells rang again.

By the same 38-30 vote, the House received the amended bill—or thought it had, until Mr R. J. Tizard (Opp., Pakuranga) reported that one of the two doors into the “ayes” lobby had not been locked, as required, during the division.

The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake): This is a fiddly little point. But I think we should have another vote. The House was 10 minutes past its usual time for the dinner adjournment when the bells shrilled again. Mr Tizard made his point: Mrs R. M. Stevenson (Govt., Taupo) had quit the chamber after the previous vote and was not back in time before the doors were again, properly, locked. She missed the final vote, which, to the great glee of the Opposition, trimmed the Government margin to seven. The bill itself, now due for a second reading, does not differ in substance from the form in which it was introduced, except for familyowned newspaper firms.

‘"Amazed”

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nordmeyer) said that having read full newspaper reports of the evidence given to the committee he was amazed the committee recommended the bill be allowed to proceed.

“Had the committee not been dominated by the Government I am sure it would not have come back in its present form," he said. “It is entirely erroneous to assume that because some large metropolitan newspaper proprietors have given their approval all newspaper proprietors have done so.” Mr Nordmeyer referred to evidence given against the bill on behalf of 30 suburban newspapers, nine of them members of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association. Evidence against the bill had also been given on behalf of the Stock Exchange Association and by the New Zealand Journalists’ Association. “The evidence of the journalists’ association should be listened to with great respect and given great weight. It was, however, apparently

not given the weight it deserved by the committee.” A group of Auckland lawyers had also given evidence against the measure and their views should have been given great weight. Yet they had been challenged by a member of the committee. Point Of Order The Minister of Forests (Mr Gerard) then raised a point of order, claiming that Mr Nordmeyer had been referring to deliberations of the committee when at this stage he was not entitled to know what had taken place when the committee was deliberating. Mr Nordmeyer said he had referred only to evidence given to the committee. The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said he himself did not know what amendments the committee had made to the bill.

“I hope nobody outside the committee knows what the amendments are. If so there has been a breach of privilege.” The usual procedure, the Prime Minister said, was for the chairman of the committee to report the bill to the House, and then to resume his seat while the Speaker put the question to members of whether or not the committee’s report be agreed to. He, Mr Holyoake, did not know whether Mr Sheat had then tried to speak on the committee’s deliberations.

Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere) said the Prime Minister was indulging “in the most tedious quibble I’ve ever heard. “The chairman of the committee did not exercise his right to pass comment on the bill. Mr Nordmeyer was assuming from this the amendments made to the measure were inconsequential and procedural in nature and I can verify he has assumed rightly. No Breach “Mr Nordmeyer has been referring to published accounts of evidence which he

is perfectly at liberty to do. There has not been any breach of privilege or etiquette.” The Speaker ruled that Mr Nordmeyer had kept within the limits prescribed under the standing orders of the House.

Mr Nordmeyer said it might be contended ample time had been given for evidence to be presented and for the committee to deliberate.

“I understand, however, that although the committee

heard all the evidence presented there were a number of groups who would have liked further opportunities of giving evidence.” Dr. Finlay said he was opposed “root and branch’’ to the measure. The recommendation that the bill be allowed to proceed had been opposed by the Labour members of the committee.

There was some evidence for the bill taken by the committee. This evidence was given by two witnesses both of whom were vitally and directly interested in the passage of the bill. Lack Of Time No evidence, said Dr. Finlay, had been given the committee to justify the bill being dealt with at this time. Insufficient time had been given to study a measure of such “novelty and ingenuity.” Dr. Finlay said some members of the committee would have liked to have had some extra evidence given the committee on the question of insurance company shareholdings in newspapers.

“But the closure was applied to the suggestion that we should invite an officer of the Life Officers’ Association to give further evidence.” The position of overseas controlled banks in relation to newspapers was not at all clear, Dr. Finlay said. “An occasion might turn up when a newspaper company might want bank security for refinancing purposes. When this happened the bank would probably take as one aspect of its security a mort-

gage over its shares. If it wanted to realize on its security and it happened to be an overseas bank, as four out of five are, it would not be able to exercise full voting rights on the shares.

“The security would thus be less attractive and the news company might have difficulty in obtaining assistance from this source.” “Wily Testator” A further point was that the measure would allow a “wily testator” to give his shares over to the control of a person living overseas. There was, said Dr. Finlay, confusion and irresolution in the committee.

He described the legislation as “ill-judged, ill-planned and ill-considered. If it is passed it will be ill-digested and I hope regurgitated.” Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opp., New Lynn) said he had never seen such eagerness on the part of Government members of the committee to proceed with a bill.

“They’re usually ready to hear evidence but on this occasion members of the other side were ready to batter down opposing evidence.” Why this disregard of evidence we heard?

“The main purpose seems to be to introduce some element of brainwashing as I understand the Chinese call the guiding and channelling of the thoughts of people.

“One of the other Government members wanted to drag out witnesses to discuss what Canada had done and was doing.”

Some of these witnesses knew nothing of what was happening there or else knew little about it, Mr Mason said. In questioning the competence of Auckland lawyers before the committee, Mr R. D. Muldoon (Govt., Tamaki) had shown himself not fit to get a leaving certificate from a kindergarten. Secrecy Claim “There seems to be some secrecy about this bill,” said Mr Mason. “What is the urgency?” Government members of the committee had been aggressive and at times offensive to witnesses. Their attitude seemed to be based on something more than the public interest. Nothing had eventuated in the committee to show any need for the bill.

Mr Edwards said that in his 11 years on the committee he had never previously been denied the right to invite special evidence. The Attorney-General (Mr Hanan): Why don’t you tell the full story? Mr Tizard: You are talking through your shareholders. It was significant, continued Mr Edwards, that the man who had gagged him in the committee was the AttorneyGeneral, the one committee member who had shares in a newspaper and the one who had drafted and introduced the legislation.

Mr Edwards said he had wanted representatives of the banks to come along and give their views on the bill. Mr Muldoon had said he was “just wasting the time of the committee.” “Mr Muldoon had been on the committee only five minutes and he was obviously put there as a gagging method,” Mr Edwards said. “Through me my electors

have been denied their democratic rights.” Mr Edwards said it was an evil bill.

“However, little chance we had of purifying it we did not even have the chance to hear all the evidence we wanted.

“For example I would have liked to recall the editor of the ‘New Zealand Herald’ to question him about his views on the fundamental principles of freedom.”

Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton) said the bill interferred with the basic freedom of the press.

It was significant that Government members were not rising to speak and were not even interjecting. Silence meant consent and indicated that if left to their devices some Government members would join the Opposition in objecting to the bill.

It was amazing that the bill should come from a party which had a professed belief in the freedom of the press. In future the press would become dependent on the good offices of the Government to retain protection. “The bill in fact makes the newspapers dependent on the whims of a Prime Minister,” Mr Kirk said.

The measure was apparently anti-overseas monopoly. “If that is really so let it be anti-all monopoly.”

Mr Kirk said the Government had evidently been unaware of the effect the bill could have on existing shareholdings in newspaper companies.

The investments of company pension and superannuation funds and stock and station agents could also be affected. It was ridiculous that a person could become a director of a newspaper and at the same time have some of his voting rights as a shareholder taken away.