THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1988. Influence on the Government

Press, 4 March 1988, Page 18

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1988. Influence on the Government

When he argues that politicisation of the Public Service will be prevented by the influence of the press, the chairman of the State Services Commission, Mr Don Hunn, is taking a flattering but unrealistic view. Mr Hunn’s words, in the new magazine published by the State Services Commission, were a comment on the fear of corrupt practice arising in the new environment of the public sector. He said: "It {would be foolish to deny such things are possible in a world of politics and rdoney, but the Public Service is, to a large degree, operating in a goldfish bowl — much ’more so than does the private sector. Taxpayers take a ; keen interest in what’s going on in Government and so does the press.’’ Later, he said: “Yhen there is the press which can be counted on to deal severely with any ‘old boy’ or ‘old girl’ appointments.” _.

i Mr Hunn is right to acknowledge that denials of the possibility of corruption would be { foolish. The j Government has been reluctant to admit that possibility. He is also right in saying that one of the constraints on Government action is the public airing of issues j through newspapers, radio, and television. That is one of the recognised checks and balances in the New Zealand political system, i Information to a great degree and comment to some degree shape public;opinion that can restrain or encourage a Government. Other checks and balances lie in the (fact that a Government must act within the law and must bow to Parliament. Most other democratic i countries have additional restraints in the form of a second house of Parliament or a written constitution.

I Responsible journalists accept and welcome a watchdog role on behalf of the public; 1 and would certainly inform the public about; appointments that might politicise a Government department. Blit Mr Hunn is mistaken if he believes that the influence of the press and, ultimately, public opinion would always or often be able to halt such undesirable appointments.

: There are a number of legal restraints on the press. For one thing,: defamation laws in New ; Zealand tend to i be applied fairly rigorously. For another,! the rights of the press; are no more than the rights of any individual citizen. There is no constitutionally enshrined freedom of the press, although various legal rulings have upheld press freedom — the same freedoms that attach to any citizen’s actions. The times during which a Government has brought in emergency laws giving itself 1 powers of censorship have been mercifully rare. But in New Zealand it would be easy ( for a government to call Parliament together and; rush through a law inhibiting press freedom and public comment. It is not, however, the legal restraints or

tie possibility of Government censorship which most limits the power of the press. Public opinion does not necessarily influence a Government. That is perfectly illustrated by the present Government. Its economic reforms have been made in the face of many public protests and the Government has even ignored many objections from its own party organisation. The Government can, and does, respond by asserting good faith, the best intentions and the need to govern. Public c pinion plainly is not a sure restraint on the Government and would not restrain a government bent on politicising the civil service. A government also has the ability to stop information being made available. The Official Information Act has reduced that ability■ but it poses little threat to a government intent on ; covering its tracks. Also, governments can easily manipulate wblic opinion. For instance, the timing and jresentation of announcements have become :ontrived acts, designed to present the Government! in the best light, not always to nfprm the public plainly or completely. Even election campaigns ( fail to disclose Government intentions! these days. A further! limitation on the power of the pres§ is simply that it {cannot do much more than try to inform its {readers and, on some matters, to argue a.particular case, perhaps to persuade readers to a view. In the case of newspapers, this is done mainly, through the editorials. But having presented an argument with care and reason, there is not much more that can be done. This newspaper, for instance, believes that as at present drafted, the State Sector Bill allows the politicisation of the Public Service and we have presented our reasons 1 on a number of occasions;! we have enabled others to express similar and contrary views. The Government has not adequately answered the arguments advanced against the bill. ‘‘lt is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” John Locke wrote in his “Essay on the Human Understanding,” about 300 years ago. All, the efforts Of newspapers since that time would not cause him to revise his opinion toddy. The inescapable difficulty in discussion on this legislation is that the debate is speculative, that one can point only to what might happen. The rejoinder is that the worst fears will not be realised. The proper answer is to write laws that will remove the grounds for fear. The wrong answer is to plunge ahead', hope for the best and then, when things go awry, to put confidence in press information or in public opinion that has already been ignored. The mere admission that pressure from the press might be needed, and should be counted on, is an admission that the bill is mistakenly drawn.