USE OF THE AIR

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 81, 3 October 1938, Page 10

USE OF THE AIR

ELECTION SPEECHES

MR. APPLETON'S ACTION

LEGAL OPINION

Speaking to a "Post" reporter today, Mr. W. Appleton, National candidate i for Wellington Central, stated emphatically that he was not bluffing when on Thursday evening last he announced his intention of- issuing a writ in the Supreme Court to restrain the Prime Minister from using- the country's broadcasting facilities for election purposes in the way he is at the present time. According to the legal advice he had taken, said Mr. Appleton, the present arrangements constituted a breach of section 14 of the Broadcasting Act and the allocation of speeches was an abuse of Ministerial powers. He had been further advised, however, that the approval of the Attorney-General was necessary before a private citizen could commence action for an injunction in this connection. Accordingly, he had sent a telegram to the Attor-ney-General at Auckland indicating to him the nature of the legal advice he had been tendered and respectfully applying for approval to issue proceedings and stating that he would undertake full liability for costs. Mr. Appleton said that he had gone as far as he could in the matter at the present time. As soon as he was given approval to proceed he would take steps forthwith to issue a writ for an injunction through the Supreme Court. THE ALLOCATION OF SPEECHES. The legal opinion received by Mr. Appleton from his solicitor deals first with the allocation" by the Prime Minister of the broadcast speeches, namely, six addresses by members representing the Opposition in the late Parliament, ten by members representing the Labour Party, three by members referred to as Independents, and with the Prime Minister having the right of an additional speech. Of the Independents, one was described as a member of the Country Party, and the other two, states the opinion, were definitely pledged to support the Labour Party on a no-confidence motion, and had indeed, during the last Parliament, consistently supported the Government. The objection to this was that it gave a preponderance in favour of the Labour Party of thirteen speeches as against six to the National and one to an Independent who was not committed to the support of the Labour Party. In the opinion of Mr. Appleton's solicitor, it was difficult to see any justification for such a basis of allocation of broadcasting rights. First, such an allocation overlooked the fact that in so far as the two major parties were concerned there was but one issue before the country and two contestants, i.e., the Labour Party and the National Party, and a fair arrangement would seem to call for equality of opportunity. Secondly, in so far as the Independents had any right at all, the Prime Minister had unfairly treated those of the Independents who had shown in Parliament and otherwise in public any leaning away from the Labour Party. Thirdly, the arrangement made no provision at all for providing opportunities of broadcasting by any person who was not. a member of the late Parliament. "It appears to me, however," the solicitor continued, "that any argument based on the distribution of parties in the late House is fallacious. Parliament has been dissolved and | there is now no . Parliament in New Zealand and will be none until the* return of the writs directing the elec- | tion. It follows that there are no Members of Parliament. There is no one entitled to place after his name the words M.P. and not even the rules I of courtesy require that any member of the late Parliament should be so ! addressed. "If a realistic view is taken of the position and if it be considered that j during this election there are two parties and two parties only that j count at all in the election, then j equality of opportunity should be given to the members of those parties. BROADCASTING FACILITIES. "As to the allocation of broadcasting facilities, this in law is in the hands of the Minister of Broadcasting. The I exercse of his authority and his ad- j ministrative acts do not depend upon i the existence of any Parliamentary party but upon the fact that he is a Minister of State for the time being entrusted with the portfolio covering the Broadcasting Department. Any I Minister of the Crown exercising func- j tions under the Crown whether by! virtue of statute or otherwise, is under a fundamental duty to exercise his authority and to regulate his acts with j strict regard to impartial administra-' tion. Whether the administration of broadcasting in connection with the present election can be regarded as impartial or not is a question upon which you are qualified to form your own opinion, but I must say that I find a difficulty in viewing the present arrangements as representing the act of an impartial administrator. "There is, however, another aspect iof the matter which has special significance in view of the fact that broadcasting facilities cannot be obtained from the commercial stations. No candidate can insist upon the purchase of any rights to commercial broadcasting in respect of his candidature, other than a colourless announcement, e.g., as to the time and place of his meeting. The fact to which I refer is made clear by the statutory provisions of the Broadcasting Act,, 1936, Section 14, which reads: 'That, except as provided in the next succeeding sub-section, no programme or part of a programme intended to serve as ah advertisement for the pecuniary benefit of any person shall be transmitted from any broadcasting station whether operated by the Minister or by any other person.' The exception above referred to is in sub-section 2 which reads as follows:—'The Minister may from time to time establish and operate broadcasting stations hereinafter referred to as commercial stations, from which programmes that include advertising matter may be transmitted.' In this connection it must be remembered that every, one of the persons who is given the right to a political broadcast under the Ministerial arrangements above referred to is a candidate for Parliament. Some of them are Ministers. All of them have a direct pecuniary interest in securing their re-election and there can be no doubt but that the speeches are programmes intended to serve as an advertisement for their pecuniary benefit." In this connection the solicitor referred to a case Nell v. Longbottorn, in which he pointed out that it was held that where a mayor or a town council was to be elected by the members of that council and a salary was attached to the office of mayor a councillor who was a candidate for that office was disqualified* from voting for himself under the Municipal Corporations Act which provided that "A member of the council shall not vote or take part in the discussion of any matter before the council or a committee in