MEMBERS' HONOUR

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 41, 16 August 1930, Page 10

MEMBERS' HONOUR

PREACH OF PRIVILEGE

NEWSPAPER OFFENDS

i EXPLANATION WANTED

As the result of a point of breach. '"ipWi'ilege raised in the House of [Representatives yesterday by the member for Napier, the editor and publisher of the Napier "Daily Telegraph" are to be required to make an explanation of certain published words before the House takes further action. The case arose out of a statement at a meeting of the •Hawkes Bay Hospital Board.

"A serious charge reflecting on my personal character has been published in the columns of the 'Daily Telegraph' for the. 12th of this month," said Mr. Barnard, in raising a point of breach •f'privilege. He asked that the report (Eomplaincd of should bo read. 1 The Clerk of the House then read t>art of-an article headed "Not Cricket ".-and, under a sub-heading, ?■'Deliberately Lying," the following remarks, were recorded: —

"Mr. Barnard was defeating the object of the statement of Mr. Priest at the board meeting," said Mr. S. J. '■M'Kee. " Unfortunately that statement in 'Hansard' is incorrectly reported. If 'Hansard' can't give us correct statements it is very little use this country having a Parliament. It would be far better to have twenty serious men. go down to Wellington than one man from here deliberately telling lies to bolster up a bad ease.

The Prime Minister (the Hon. G. W. Forbes) stressed' the seriousness of the sna'tter, remarking that the reputation :«f> every member of the House was afSected by charges of such a nature. It tras •a • matter in which all members Were concerned. (Hear, hear.) Such a ktatement-had-the effect of belittling and lowering the reputation of members hi • Parliament. Unfounded charges ■jw.pre not allowed to be made against imeinbers. who were carrying out public duties.. Hevmoved that the publication'of the words complained of m the report was a breach of privilege, as it was^ a libel on a member of the House; and that the editor and publisher of the "Telegraph," and Mr. S. J. M'Kee ■bo; written to for an explanation before further action was taken by the House. "It is a gross libel both on the member $or-Napier-and the other members of the House," said Mr. Forbes, - THE LAW OF LIBEL. Mr.'R. A. Wright (Eeform, Wellington Suburbs) said that the law of libel in • New Zealand to-day permitted i a newspaper -to publish without comment statements made at a public meeting, and therefore the "Telegraph" could •not-'be held liable. The position was different so far as the man who made the actual statement was concerned. If the paper itself had made the comment, or if it had endorsed it, the editor and publisher would be liable. Ho could not see the sense of attaching the editor and. publisher to the motion and making 'them .equally responsible. Formerly a paper which published a libel, even though it was uttered at a public meeting, ,was .punishable, but the law lad been altered by the House so that a paper was only responsible for what it stated in comment. "I think it is v<*y hard," said Mr. Wright, "if newspaper proprietors, editors, and publishers have to be responsible for what may be stated- by irresponsible people at public meetings. Ido think this breach of-privilege business is going too far. If Mr. M'Kee had used Parliamentary language I suppose no notice would have been taken of it. I know that members of Parliament are very unjustly censured at times, but by a judgment of the Supremo Court it has been leld that a member of Parliament haa got to ; take criticism." v '■ THE HONOUR OF MEMBERS. |

Bising to a point of order, Mr. G. O. Black (United, Motueka) asked for a ruling by Mr. Speaker as to whether the House was concerned, not with the law of libel, but with its own Standing Orders. Was it not a fact, he asked, that the Standing Orders joined the publisher of a paper, together with the person responsible for making the remarks, in such a case? Mr. Speaker said that the word "libel" was a legal term, and had to be interpreted legally, but the. words complained of in the present case appeared to. be a defamatory statement concerning a member of the House, and it also affected the honour of the members generally, and the honour of the House itself. It seemed, therefore, to be a proper .thing for the House to take notice of.

Mr. Wright: "I don't remember a case in which a breach of privilege before the House really amounted to anything. I agree that what has been said in this case is out of place, but I don't think we should take the editor and publisher to task." "NO MAN WILL BE SAFE."

The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. -E. Holland) said he hoped the motion would be carried. If they agreed ■with Mr. Wright's viewpoint they would be agreeing that it was open to any newspaper to arrange for some person at a meeting to make a slanderous statement such as that now complained of.-The matter affected not only Mr. Barnard, but every member in the House. If it was to be open to newspapers, with their trained journalists, to print slanderous statements with the excuse that they were only reporting •what somebody had said, no man would be safe. (Hear, hear.) In the last General Election a lady was influenced to make certain statement!- . with respect to certain members oi the House, and they were circulated throughout the Dominion by the Press Association. They, were calculated to damage the members concerned) who had no remedy outside the law of libel. Notwithstanding what Mr. Wright said, when the Press Association found itself confronted with the possibility of legal action it apologised throughout New Zealand in every paper in which the statement had been published. It appeared to him that the editor of a newspaper should be required to take responsibility for what he allowed to appear in his columns.

It was to tho credit of most of the newspapers in the Dominion that when a false and clearly slanderous statement was made they would not

give publicity to it.

It might be that in the present case publication was accidental;. he would not say it was intentional. Those who I had had association with newspapers knew that it was not always possible for an editor himself to keep an eye on what was being put into print. The House should require that whoever permitted such a statement as that under | consideration to be printed should be called on to account for having allowed it. "SLOVENLY REPORTING. " "Lain not raising any objection at! all to the resolution," said Mr. H. M. Campbell (Beform, Hawkes Bay). "I think it ought to bo carried, and that it will be carried. I think the newspaper concerned is considerably to blame, and that the offence has been brought about more by slovenly report-1 ing than by any intention to put things astray." The paper should have got hold" of the correct facts and stater) j them correctly, and ho declared that this had not been done.

"I regret the remarks which have been1-made by,,the member for Willing-

ton Suburbs," said Mr. Barnard. "Although I am a much younger politician than he is, I am quite aware that every politician must be prepared to take plenty of hard knocks, and I have taken them. As a matter of fact, in the earlier part of the report of .the board meeting severe criticism was meted out to me, but I am not complaining hero about that. Thero are other ways of meeting such criticism. But what I am concerned about is that a, reflection has been cast on my personal character, and I have yet to learu that I must come up smiling wljqu, in the public Press, I am called a liar. 11 am aware, also, that a newspaper has the right to claim privilege iv report-ing-public-meetings, but that privilege is not absolute, and I have yet to learn that.'a newspaper is entitled to publish statements made at a meeting of :i public body iv such a way as to constitute'a grave personal slander. "Why not prosecute the newspaper for libel?" asked Mr: Wright.

Mr. Barnard: "That is not the question.' The statement libels Parliament, as has been said, and I am concerned in the matter not as a private citizen,' but as a member of this honourable House. . I would like to make my position' clear for the benefit of members. The statement which has been read is ■■ entitled 'Deliberately Lying.'. Although that defamation may be actionable at law, I am concerned with it rather as involving a grave insult to me as a member of this House, but also incidentally as an affront to the electors who sent me here. I claim that there has been a breach of privilege, and I ask for the support of my fellow-members in clearing my good name. TO CLBAK HIS HONOUR. . "I. may say," said Mr. Barnard, "that I wired to Mr. M'Kee, to whom the remarks were attibnted, and he has replied as follows: 'Telegraph' report incorrect. Did not accuse you of deliberately lying. See 'Tribune' or 'Herald.'' I also got into touch with the editor- and the - manager of the 'Daily Telegraph,' both of whom I know very well, and the- manager informed me'that a correct report was taken .of the proceedings. Now, I am less concerned with the person actually responsible for the statement than with the fact that it has been made and circulated amongst thousands of my constituents, and I am bound to clear myself. I consider that this can best be done by appealing to the House. I therefore claim that a breach of Parliamentary privilege has been committed, and I'earnestly hope that the House will take such action, as it thinks proper, to clear me from a libellous and unwarranted charge.'' MORE CARE SHOULD BE USED. Colonel T. W. M' Donald (United, Wairarapa) submitted that if they took no notice of the offence they would open the door to a very serious position. There was no telling ..what might happen if collusion was resorted to. It was not o much because of the effect on the member for Napier, which was bad enough, but it was more in the interests of the House as a whole, that action should be taken. _He believed the newspaper acted quite innocently and with no desue to injure Mr. Barnard, but he also believed that the management and the editor of ihe paper should be given to understand that more care should be exercised in the publication of such' reports. . "VERY NEAR TO SEDITION." Mr; J. M* Combs (Labour, Lyttelton), replying to Mr. Wright's contention, stated that Parliament was above all Courts of Law and was the keeper of its own honour. It could bring before it. any person who offended against Parliamentary privilege. The statement that if Parliament could not give correct statements it was very little use this country having a Parliament was an insult to the whole of the Parliamentarians, and was not only a breach of privilege but very close to being seditious. It suggested' that they should get rid of Parliament, which was the supreme authority in New Zealand. He hoped the House would not take Mr. Wright's point of view. Parliament was called upon to defend itself. ■ ■ • •

Mr. A.-M. Samuel (Reform, Thames) said that the reputation of every member of Parliament should bo upheld not only by'the House but by the Press, and if a misapprehension had been caused by any • statement, a newspaper should use every means at its disposal to inquire into the truth of that statement before publishing it, especially if it deliberately accused a member of the House of lying. "We are here to be shot at," he remarked, "but we expect fair play and fair criticism." The motion was then put and carried unanimously. :