NEWS BILL DEBATE Opposition Policy Under Attack

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30895, 30 October 1965, Page 16

NEWS BILL DEBATE Opposition Policy Under Attack

(from Our Parliamentary Reporter? WELLINGTON, October 29. The Opposition’s dogged filibuster on the committee stages of the News Media Ownership Bill was matched late this evening by Government sallies which kept both sides in an uproar.

At one stage the Prime Minister (Mr Hoiyoake), rising on a point of order, said he had counted seven members interjecting from Opposition benches.

They were objecting to the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Hanan) who, exercising his rights under standing orders, was speaking too often to suit the Opposition. It was close to 11 p.m. when the bells rang to signal another division—for the fourth of 19 clauses. The Government established that the take-over. Monopoly and Foreign Investment Bill Introduced by Mr M. A. Connelly (Opp., Riccarton) in 1964 represented Opposition policy. It continued to pound the Opposition by reference to that measure and a surprising amount of time was spent discussing the wrong bill. After nine hours the ninth division was taken, with the prospect of a long debate ahead. Mr W. A. Sheat (Govt., Egmont) said the the Opposition wanted newspapers published by overseas magnates who, for the purposes of profit, would be prepared to peddle Labour policy. . “Unenforceable” Mr N. V. Douglas (Opp., Auckland Central) described as unenforceable a clause designed to outlaw arrangements by which any overseas person might require or prevent publication of news or comment in New Zealand.

Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp., Lyttelton) said the clause could prevent New Zealand taking advantage of satellite transmission of television, contracts for which required the whole of a service to be used. Dr. Finlay said the Opposition was not seeking overseas ownership of any New Zealand newspapers, but felt the door should not be totally blocked. There could well be circumstances when it could be of advantage to have an overseas-controlled newspaper.

The Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) said he did not like restrictions but he would not like to see New Zealand newspapers taken over by overseas companies. He therefore supported the move to prevent it. Mr G. G. Grieve (Govt., Awarua) moved the closure on clause three. The Government won the subsequent division by 38 votes to 34 and the clause was passed by a similar margin. During discussion on the next clause the Prime Minister said he was probably the most criticised person in the country. “But I don’t think reporters and editors do so with malice aforethought,” he said.

Mr Kirk said it was clear that directors exercised control of the policy of newspapers. The editor of the “New Zealand Herald,” Mr O. S. Hintz, said that shareholders did not lay down the policy of his newspaper. The bill did not prevent Lord Thomson or any overseas person from becoming a director. “If the Government had a genuine fear of overseas control it would have blocked the influential area of directors.” Mr Marshall said that surely 80 per cent of the shareholders could ensure that the company was run by them. Dr. Finlay said Mr Marshall was living in a fantasy world if he believed directors were elected by shareholders. “This bill proclaims we are a small frightened country,” he said. The Prime Minister: Like Canada and Australia.

Mr Nordmeyer said the Prime Minister had persistently and flagrantly interjected. Dr. Finlay said Mr Murdoch might still be able to exercise voting rights on all 29 per cent of the “Dominion” shares he had purchased. This was disputed by Mr Hanan. Ample Time Mr W. A. Sheat (Govt., Egmont) said Opposition members had had ample time to improve the bill when it was before the committee. Mr M. Rata (Opp., Northern Maori): We don’t want to improve it. We want to chuck it out. Mr Adams-Schneider said the Government was at one with the Canadian and Australian Government on the subject It was not a case of a nation going it alone. Labour had announced that once in power it would repeal the bill. What would it do then? Mr Kirk: You have been told. Mr Adams-Schneider: If the bill were repealed, Murdoch, and Emperor Jones, and Thomson would come in. Who would stop them? The chairman of committees (Mr Jack) said there had been seven Opposition speakers and three for the Government apart from the Minister of Justice. The clause had been under consideration for approximately one hour and 10 minutes but members were still dealing less with details of the clauses than with general principles. The motion that closure be applied and the motion that the clause stand were both won by the Government, 38-34. The House was still sitting after midnight.