DELIBERATE BOYCOTT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 34, 8 August 1925, Page 7

DELIBERATE BOYCOTT

LABOUR LEADER'S COMPLAINT,

SUPPRESSION OF MEMBERS'

SPEECHES

Farther allegations against certain newspapers in regard to the suppression of members' speeches were made by the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) last night in the House of Representatives. Mr. Holland moved that the- main vote on tho Estimates be reduced by £3 as an indication that accommodation in the Parliamentary Press Gallery was provided on condition that newspapers did not discriminate for or against any section of the House in their reports of the proceedings. "This is .a matter that has got to be faced sooner or later," said Mr. Hoi- j land. '"This country spends money to provide accommodation for some of the newspapers of the Dominion in _ the House, and there is nothing -unfair in suggesting 1 that when that accommodation, is provided at the public expense the newspapers might' bo expected to give fair and honest reports with respect to all parties in the House." Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne): "They do." " . Mr. Holland: "Of course the member for Gisborne will take the contrary attitude without respect for the facts." He said that several papers deliberately boycotted a speech delivered by a Labour member, and yet the same papers gave about a column to a reply to the same speech which they had suppressed. "We don't ask that any difference shall be made between the different parties in the House," be said. "It is a fair thing to suggest that the Government speakers and the Liberal and Labour speakers should be fairly reported, but we find—especially with respect to two of the Wellington papers, the two Auckland papers, and two put of three of the Christchui'ch papers—that the papers are run practically for the purpose of booming the Government side of the House, and that the other sides [ai the House get very little fair play so far as their statements are concerned." Mr. Holland said he made no complaint about the reporters. Ho believed they furnished the reports, but he knew how their work was bluepencilled in the sub-editor's department. . "EVENING POST" EXCEPTED "The newspapers made use of the accommodation provided in this House," ha said, "to print columns and columns of the statements made by the lion, member for Christchurch North, and. they suppressed the statements made in reply- I want to except the 'Evening Post' of Wellington in that connection, but if you take the other two papers j you will find a practical boycott applied \to the reply which I made on behalf of i the Labour Party." Mr. Lysnar: "You did not make any I reply; you did nob answer the questions." Mr. Holland: "The hon. gentleman has just given me the opportunity to draw attention to the dishonesty of the papers—the 'Evening Post' is excepted again. When I pointed out that there was no question addressed to myself as Leader., of the Labour Party in the questions put\in which .there was not offensive reference (on account of which I I said I would not reply), the- papers suppressed that, as they suppressed other incidents in connection withat state- . ment. I am sure- the public of tbJ3 country don't wish to have, any side of the House suppressed in its, utterances. There is no fair-minded man in any section of the House who wishes to have suppression with regard to other sections of th<j House, and I think that the carrying of an amendment such as I have proposed will draw the attention of the public to what is happening and that it will probably have an influence. I know, of course, tho hitter attitude which some of the papers are taking up, and I just want to mention this fact—that some of the papers which endeavour to make the Labour Party appear to be as bad as they possibly can are amongst the list of papers which wrote to myself two months before the late Prime Minister died,, and asked me to give them an exclusive statement to be published following his death. They wanted a copyright of my opinion about the late Prime Minister, and that is one reason why I didn't supply a statement." Sir James Parr: "Do you mean leadingl articles?" A FAIR DEAL Mr. Holland said he was not complaining of leading articles, but of suppression in the reporting He said he had made a statement in the House in which he gave a list of papers and referred to space they devoted to the very important speech made by the member for Auckland West in regard to the land question. They deliberately suppressed tho information given by tho hon. member, and then published a long statement in reply to that statement, No member ' of tho House wanted to be told that that was fair or honest journalism, and that the money of the country should ba expended in making it possible for that to be done. If money was spent on the newspapers in giving them accommodation in the House he thought they should insist upon the newspapers giving, a fair deal for the money so spent.

The motion was defeated on a division being taken by 33 votes to 18.