The Grey River Argus MONDAY, May 10, 1948. ON THE OUTSIDE

Grey River Argus, 10 May 1948, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, May 10, 1948. ON THE OUTSIDE

THE news that Labour newspapers will share with their Nationalist contemporaries the honour of “sitting out’.’ the Nationalist Party’s forthcoming conference at Dunedin will not disturb the Nationalists or their mouthpieces to the extent that the exclusion of other than Labour newspapers, from the conferences of the Labour Party and Federation of Labour appeared tq, excite the anger of the opponents of Labour. Whilst it might be expected that Nationalist contemporaries would refer to “tailored” reports of the proceedings of b’oth coifferences — and to the extent that purely domestic considerations made such a course necessary, there must have been some “tailoring” —it will now be much more interesting to observe th 6 complete, somersault that may be expected during and after the next political conference.

Party polities are always matters of public interest. That they should be twisted by editorial comment to the length of absurdity gives no escape from the fact that Nationalist contemporaries cannot point out any instances in modern days when the press has been permitted to attend any political conference. That un palatable fact goes to show that, although the Labour Movement is prepared to trust its newspapers, the voices of Nationalist, opinion are not so regarded by the bosses of the political party they represent and acclaim. With remits from a disruptive section, which hoped thereby to receive more than its just measure of publicity, the Federation of Labour held fast to its repeated decision not to allow the press to attend its conference, but, at the same time, very extensive reports of the proceedings were given to the team of visiting and local journalists whose presence at the Dunedin conferences was unprecedented. Recent developments in the industrial field, no doubt, gave hopes to some newspapers that there would be violent clashes as a prelude to -a period of complete disunity. It is obvious that clashes did occur at the Federation of Labour conference, but the Federation has always observed majority rule in a democratic sense, and those who failed to have their opinions endorsed will be .bound by the decisions of the majority. With the Labour Party conference no such clashes developed. Nor were they to be expected, as the conference is comprised entirly of Party members, in contrast to that of the Federation of Labour, whose delegates may belo”' to any or no party at all. PLAN OF PROGRESS:

What has probably caused most annoyance to the enemies o fthe Labour Movement —political and industrial—is the fact that from both conferences emerges the structure of a plan of progress for thid coulntry. Neither conference was primarily concerned with preparations for the next general election, but the decisions. including' postponed decisions on many controversial topics, are such as can be moulded into an election policy which will have much more appeal to the man in the street than the. skeleton of a polio? presented at t*he last general election by Labour’s opposition. From many points of view, it is as well that the Party in power should play its cards before, the suits get mixed, and this is just what, has happened before the Nationalists' Party machine presents for the approval of the coming conference what might be expected to be the new policy for the next election.

How much of that policy will be disclosed to the public is perhaps the biggest question which will face the team of publicists the National Party employs. Whatever is published, however, will be the most carefully selected ingredients of a policy which will need some solid foundations, and will not contain the tvhole elements. It cannot be claimed, on the other hand, that, with the whole of the remits considered and the results of deliberation'? on-them given to the press, there has been any attempt to mislead the public about the decisions of Labour. Are the Nationlaists prepared to let the public into as much of their secret plans, or is New Zealand to be fed again with a mixture of policy coated in the pronounced fashion of typical Nationalist propaganda by the obscuring of truth? The Nationalist press itself ought to be in the best position to answer that question, but the public, can be expected to have the whole story presented in a way designed to

cover up. Submitting to the questions of keen pressmen is a much more delicate task than preparing long typewritten statements —as the Nationalists do —and handing them to the. newspapers without comment. That is the essential difference between-the methods employed by both parties in their relations with the press.