Opposition’s Odd Line’

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

Opposition’s Odd Line’

Mr Hanan said the Opposition was adopting an odd line. “I can see the great ones of the past, Harry Holland and Peter Fraser and the others, looking down and asking what had happened to the Labour Party, that it should be supporting take-over by overseas interests,” he said. Mr W. A. Fox (Opp., Miramar): They’d say “Hanan's as slippery as ever.”

Mr Hanan thanked the witnesses before the committee for the points they had made. Referring to the comment by Mr Edwards, he said that the life insurance companies had been exempted from the provisions of the bill, and so it was not considered necessary for their representatives to be called before the committee.

“This complex bill resolves itself into one simple issue,” Mr Hanan said. “Are our newspapers to be controlled from inside the country or from outside.”

Mr N. V. Douglas (Opp., Auckland Central) said that Mr Hanan had misrepresented the case.

“What we are saying is that there was insufficient time for the Statutes Revision Committee to weigh the evidence, that people who wanted to give evidence were unable to do so, and that other people were debarred because the Government put the closure on,” he said. Mandate Claimed The committee had had eight meetings and had sat for 19 hours. The Government claimed it had a mandate. “The Government introduced a bill last year on takeovers,” Mr Douglas said. “I am informed that of 33 takeovers under those regulations, all had been agreed to.”

The Minister had said there was a simple issue as to whether New Zealand papers should be controlled from inside the country or out, Mr Douglas said. “There are people who could say the issues are simpler than that. It is a matter of Thomson versus Hanan —for they are both interested in newspapers.” Mr Douglas asked if it were seriously contended that, had Lord Thomson taken over the “Dominion” we would have brought in “a gang of saboteurs and libellers?”

He quoted statemeuis from National Party policy that “the country makes the greatest progress when unhindered by the State”— but, he said, a witness before the committee had made the point that this was a major interference by the State. The National Party placed great faith in the importance of private enterprise, Mr Douglas said—“but it sets about to limit this freedom to certain individuals.” Himmler’s Chance He asked the Minister of Justice to agree that Himmler, with residential qualifications, could have shares in a New Zealand paper under the bill, whereas a New Zealander moving overse s could not. “We would have got a little more by the Thomson takeover than by the retention of the P.A.,” Mr Douglas said.

The Prime Minister said the problem of take-overs was concerning governments everywhere. The bill dealt with it simply in the newspaper field. “I want debate on this bill,” he said. “This is not a debate on the bill. This is simply a delaying tactic by the Opposi-

tion, which says ‘we shall stop the bill being admitted’.” Mr Holyoake said that last year there was a take-over of a newspaper in New Zealand.

Mr W. W. Freer (Opp., Mt. Albert): It could only have improved it.

“The Government considered the question,” Mr Holyoake said. “There were about three more take-over bids. There were offers for other newspapers—l don’t know how many. ... I believe in New Zealanders owning their own papers. “I want to see New Zealand controlled by New Zealanders.”

H e said that other countries had met the same trouble in the same way. Australia had done the same concerning television and radio. Recently Canada had taken exactly similar action. Opposition voice: Not similar at all. Own Destiny Mr Holyoake: I would like to see New Zealand have control of its own destiny in all spheres of activity. “I could not with equanimity see Auckland newspapers controlled in Melbourne, Wellington newspapers in Lon-

don, and perhaps Christchurch newspapers in Sydney.” If the position had arisen with any other newspaper, no matter how small, Mr Holyoake said, he would have adopted the same attitude. If the Government had permitted the take-over of one newspaper, it would have had to permit them all. “I believe that the bill should come down and should be debated,” Mr Holyoake said.

“I think we have a pretty good bill here. Do we want overseas control or not?” Mr Edwards: That is not the issue.

Mr P. Blanchfield (Opp., Westland): Making a home for millionaires. Mr Freer asked how the Prime Minister knew that the bill was a good one. How did he know what sort of bill it was? All he really knew was what the bill looked like before the committee received it.

“And if he is satisfied, I venture to suggest that he is one of the few in New Zealand so easily contented,” Mr Freer said.

Mr Freer complained that the House had not been told whose brainchild the legislation was. “Can we have an assurance that this bill has not been designed to reward a certain

Mr Rupert Murdoch? It did seem odd that a hard-headed businessman like he is would last year have agreed to forgo some of his voting priviliges with the ‘Dominion’ after some hole-in-the-corner negotiations with the Prime Minister.

“It seems that the only persons who could haVe suggested the bill to the Government were Mr Murdoch and his associates. They appear to be the only ones who will secure any benefit or reward from this legislation. “To persuade him to forgo some of his rights, did the Prime Minister, another Minister or the Cabinet collectively give him an undertaking that legislation would be introduced to prevent anyone else from doing what he had done with the Dominion?”

The Under-Secretary of Finance (Mr Muldoon) said the Opposition was apparently prepared to fight for overseas take-overs of New Zealand business. “The Life Offices Association was not denied a request to appear before the committee. It sought a meeting if we on the committee could not deal with a request in a letter, but we did deal with that request,” he said. The council of the Auckland Law Society had, significantly, supported the group known as “the young Auckland lawyers” only on that portion of their representations dealing with time available for consideration of the bill.

Mr S. A. Whitehead (Opp., Nelson): The Prime Minister has said he wants New Zealand to grow up. He must have been looking in the mirror.

This matter of whether we shall ever grow up is the very question a lot of people have been asking. They want another avenue of overseas news. This legislation will deny them that opportunity. Overseas Service Mr Holyoake said: We can get any overseas service tomorrow. Opposition voices: Who’s we? The point is, will we? Mr Whitehead: The Prime Minister is talking on behalf of his friends who are shareholders in New Zealand papers. Mr Holyoake: 1 do not know any shareholders in New Zealand papers. Opposition voices: There’s one sitting right beside you. Mr Whitehead: What the Government is saying is that it hasn’t enough confidence in New Zealand papers to stand up to competition from overseas.

Mr Holyoake: They say that themselves.