PUBLICITY INQUIRY Department Head Questioned

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32007, 6 June 1969, Page 1

PUBLICITY INQUIRY Department Head Questioned

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 5. The name of the private citizen once alleged to have written the controversial Publicity Division article on the National Development Conference was revealed —but suppressed—at a committee of inquiry hearing at Parliament Buildings today.

Mr R. A. Heron, counsel for the man described as Mr ‘<X,” said his client was quite prepared to appear and give evidence if necessary.

But, as other evidence would show, he was innocent, and the committee should order interim suppression of his name, to be converted to final suppression at the end of the inquiry if Mr “X” was fully cleared.

The chairman of the select committee (Sir Leslie Munro) ordered interim suppression. Mr R. S. Austin, general manager of the Tourist and Publicity Department, said that on the afternoon of Thursday, May 22, after the Acting Minister (Mr AdamsSchneider) had told Mr Austin that he should obtain the name of Mr “X,” he immediately called Mr Burns and persuaded him to contact Mr “X.” He asked Mr Burns to re-' quest permission to release ; Mr “X’s” name, and also to endeavour to arrange for Mr ' “X” to speak to Mr Austin. “Mr Burns returned to my ‘ office and stated that the writer would not agree to any of these requests. However, I ■ finally persuaded Mr Burns ; to give me the name and : office of business of this per-, son, but before doing so he ( pointed out that he was break- . ing a confidence and asked me not to give him away by contacting the person my-, self," said Mr Austin. Identity Checked , “1 arranged a check by • telephone to ensure that' such a person existed, and was at the business address, given, but did not speak to him, since in doing so I would have broken a confidence," said Mr Austin.

When requested to give a press conference the next day, Friday, May 23, he had no reason to doubt that any of the information he had obtained and passed on to the Acting Minister was not correct Nor had he had at any time during his “long contact” With Mr Bums, any reason to doubt his word. At the meeting on Monday, May 26, with Mr AdamsSchneider, Mr Austin, Mr Buras, and the editor of the press and information section of the department (Mr 0. S. Thomson), the writer of the N.D.C. article, Mr B. S. G. Lambert, claimed under questioning that the article was wholly produced by him. “Mr Burns still maintained that his own statements were correct, although he now admitted that Mr Lambert had carried out some work ‘editing and amending' the N.D.C. review in question,” he said. Mr Austin said that from memory an affidavit signed by Mr Burns on the morning of Tuesday, May 27, contained a statement indicating that not until the evening of May 26

did he realise the extent of the involvement in the writing of the N.D.C. article of Mr Lambert. “Right from the very first contact I made with Mr Burns concerning the release of this article, he immediately accepted full responsibility, and looked upon it as an error in judgment,” said Mr Austin. “I understand that Mr Burns has been under stress, due to the fact that Mrs Burns has not enjoyed good health for some time and is in fact very ill at the present time.” Morale Affected Asked by Mr Hanan if he had any idea how many questions his department prepared for use in Parliament in one year, Mr Austin said that from a summary of all questions asked during the 1968 Parliament 28 had been answered by the Minister of Tourism and Publicity. Of these 10 had come from suggestions submitted by members of the department

Referring to the departmental memorandum asking for Parliamentary questions and shown to Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk), Mr Hanan asked if this disclosure would have any effect on the morale of the

department’s officers. Mr Austin: I don’t think there is any doubt about that Asked by. the -Attorney-

General (Mr Hanan) how many officers were under suspicion for releasing the memorandum, Mr Austin said the whole staff was affected. Questioned on moves to review the departinent Mr Aus-

tin said a normal management review was in progress.

Mr Hanan: Was the review initiated by the present Minister, Mr Thomson. Mr Austin: Yes. That is how I understand it.

Dr A M. Finlay asked why, if it were normal practice for departmental officers to submit questions for answer in Parliament, a special memorandum was distributed. Mr Austin replied that there was no special significance in the memorandum. It just sought information at the beginning of a Parliamentary session. The questions, said Mr Austin, were aimed at informing Parliament and the country.

“Fair Conunent”

Dr Finlay asked if Mr Austin thought the two articles were unbiased.

Mr Austin: I can’t personally see any bias in the C.A.R.P. article, but the N.D.C. article could be called biased.

Asked if the third paragraph, for example, was biased, Mr Austin said that having been at the N.D.C. himself he considered it to be fair comment, but it should not have come from a Government department. Dr Finlay: Is paragraph four biased? We needn’t go past the first line . . . Sir Leslie Munro: Give him time to answer, will you.

When it was found that three different versions of the N.D.C. article were held by people in the room, Sir Leslie Munro asked Dr Finlay to table his version. Dr Finlay did so with objection, claiming that his copy was a departmental reprint, and that he had personally marked it. Mr Holyoake: Is your’s unsourced?

Mr Hanan: It’s got a wider margin than ours. Dr Finlay: That’s the margin of error. Mr Austin said paragraph four and several following paragraphs were not suitable for Government distribution, and to some extent were “emotive” writing.

Asked by Dr Finlay if the facts in the article were only a bare summary of the conference, and thus the article was hardly newsworthy, Mr Austin said this appeared to have been shown by the editors, who received it but did not publish it. Dr Finlay: Then the only news is in the political part of it?—l suppose so. Can you refer to where Dr Sutch said, as claimed in the article, that the N.D.C. was a “cruel hoax” —No. The part about Mr Kirk having two masters, is this factual?—No. That is one of the passages that should not have gone out. Party Directive To Mr Mathison, Mr Austin said he could not feel free to publish the directive from the Minister in Charge of Publicity (Mr Thomson) that the department should not aid the National Party machine.

But he believed the directive was made after a discussion in the Cabinet on the party and matters affecting the department. He had no knowledge of any previous efforts of the department which could be said to have been made on behalf of the National Party. The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) asked a series of questions which apparently sought to emphasise the discretion of Ministers when dealing with publicity matters. Has any Minister ever asked you to do anything which offends the normal conduct of your department?— No. Has any Minister ever asked you to do anything which is offensive to any journalistic code of ethics? — No. Has any Minister done anything which would offend the rules of conduct under which your offices work?—No. Breach Of Ethics The Prime Minister asked Mr Austin if the release of the departmental memorandum to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) or an agent acting on his behalf with or without his knowledge, was in violation of the rules and ethics under which Mr Austin and his departinent worked. Mr Austin said it was. Every person employed in the Public Service had to sign a declaration that he would not distribute, without the permission of the Minister, any official information gained in the course of his duties.