COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL' CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34072, 9 February 1976, Page 14

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL' CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

(By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

WELLINGTON, February 8. —The formation of a new Prime Minister's Department and, within it, a special press branch employing journalists on contract, has drawn comment in the last few weeks. It is not realised that the big change in publicity methods, at Ministerial level and above, in fact began with the Labour Government three years ago.

Before Labour became the Government the practice was for press officers to be “attached” to Ministers I through the Tourist and Publicity Department. The late Mr N. E. Kirk was suspicious of this arrangement, particularly when instances I occurred in which Govern-ment-employed press officers appeared to carry their ■ briefs for Ministers into the I personal field. When in opposition, Labour spokesmen threatened to “clean up” the situation, obviously by rearranging the publicity section. Indeed, this became as much of a fixation as did the modification or removal of the Security Intelligence Service.

When he became Prime Minister, Mr Kirk did what others had done before him. He continued to employ the man who was his press officer during the election campaign (Mr M. Goston) as his publicity officer, in his own office; and he did so through the Tourist and Publicity Department.

On a similar pattern, ■others from outside the Pubi lie Service were employed in the special capacity of perI sonal publicity officers, spe- | cial projects advisers, and I public relations officers.

These included Mrs Faye Chapman. Dr P. Hohepa. Mr H. Dansey, Mr A. Haas and others. The jobs were varied, ranging from improving the reputation of some institutions to producing reports for the Education Department. But they were outside the normal pattern of Public Service appointments.

The pattern of Labour’s ; scheme was expressed by the Minister in Charge of I Publicity (Mr Watt) on November 5, 1973. He said that i Ministers would be allowed Ito select their own press I officers, either from within I the Public Service or from | private enterprise. Mr Watt said that the present publicity section was to become a department separate from that of tourism. The Government, he said, would appoint press officers to overseas posts and in South Island centres. The State Services Commission, he indicated, had recommended attention to Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan, Europe and North America — perhaps not all by resident officers.

“In my opinion the Pub- ; licity Department has not been able to give value for I money,” Mr Watt said, j “Over the years, constant j changes within the departI ment have hindered progress, both in New Zealand and in this department’s overseas service. This has been the fault of the system. Talents suited to other Government departments cannot be applied to the type of talents required for top-rate publicity people. “To date, our press officers have been required to serve many masters within a completely inflexible system, yet they are still expected to be dedicated individualists, with initiative and flair. Such a ;marriage is impossible.” ; He referred in passing to incidents during the pre-; | vious administration which I ■had drawn opposition fire. '“Some people stepped outiside the system which we, las an Opposition at that time, were required to operate within. They became victims of the system.

“So, if the system is a bad | one, the short answer is to I change it — find a better lone, once and for all.”

This speech was one of i the most remarkable made by Mr Watt. Cynics in the Public Relations Institute made guesses on who had compiled and written it. But Mr Watt said that for months he had studied reports, including an interim one on State Service management, and had talked to many people in press, public relations, advertising and general publicity fields. Mr Watt pledged himeself to make the changes. “The Publicity Department must become completely separate from tourism or any other department with a Minister in charge, as at present. The press officer corps should be divided into two distinct groups, one being the ministerial press officers, based in Parliament buildings and conveying ministerial decisions, planning and opinions to the news media in every way possible.” He saw the Prime Minister’s officers as separate from this. “New terms of

employment should be worked out. Each Minister should have the opportunity to hiring his own officer.”

There was much more in ■ similar vein, the theme i being to cut out the “screeds of useless information” from departmental men in favour of sharp liaison between departments and news media At some points Mr Watt appeared to be quoting ; either a State Services rejport of a public relations | firm’s plan for a link between these firms and members of the Cabinet, with even a mention of acceptable profit margins and a reminder that the funds used would be public money. Apparently the State Services report studied by Mr Watt concluded that the formation of a Government advertising agency was not warranted (though Australia has one). But Mr Watt was repetitive about publicity ; posts overseas: "One good, dedicated man with little overhead and a first-rate back-up service from a 'streamlined overseas section ihere could accomplish much

Mr Watt reminded the public relations people he was addressing that Labour had promised much in regio nal development. He said I that press officers should be I appointed to Christchurch and Dunedin, and pointed out that in the recent “traffic blitz” in Christchurch, a press officer had to be seconded from the Auckland office. “The South must be encouraged to grow and expand,” Mr Watt said. "After all, it boasts some of our major tourist attractions.” He was concerned about specialised recruiting. “Overseas posts and advertising are two areas which immediately come to mind. Most changes will mean redeployment of existing staff . . ’’

All of this was in the pipeline, and much of it remained there. Within a very short time, ; because of the illness of Mr 'Kirk, Mr Watt was to find himself with the responsibility, if little of the real power, of Prime Minister. The major points of his publicity plan had to wait. But if these were Labour intentions some 27 months ago, members of the present Opposition can scarcely find fault with the changes as introduced with Mr Muldoon’s arrival. The suggestion is that they were intended anyway, plus many more which lack of finance may now defer.