PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1648, 30 September 1903, Page 15

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

the “ NEW ZEALAND TIMES” CASE PUBLICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS. PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER AND PUBLISHER FINED. Tho Privileges Commiotee, Mr Speaker, Mr Miliar (Chairman of Committees), Mr Massey, Sir W. R. Russell, Sir W. J. Steward and the Premier, set up by Parliament “to inquire into and repoik on the matter of the publication in the ‘Now Zealand Times’ of comidential papers, incbading a Bill dealing wi'ch secondary education, now confidentially before tho Select Committee on Education,” presented ns report to Parliament last Wednesday afternoon. The report was as follows: —- ‘‘With re-spec- co the orde r of reference of Wednesday, the 9th September, «. your committee have the honour, to report thatc they have inquired into the „mat>cer of the publication in the New Zea.and Times’ of the sth and 7th September of certain information contained in confidential documents then before a Select Committee on Education, winch was declared by the House to be a breach of privilege, and have examined upon oath the following witnesses, namely:— “Mr J. L. Kelly, editor ‘New Zealand Times' ; Mr M. E. Bannister, publisher ‘Now Zealand Times’; Mr P. J. Nolan, chief reporter, ‘New Zealand Times ; Mr Emil Schwabe, reporter, ‘Now Zeaiand Times’ ; Mr J. Mackay, Government Printer; Mr G. Hogben, Secretary for Education ; Mr P. H. 0. Hiram, clerk to Education Committee ; Mr E. A. Redward, clerk to Crown law officers, Sir E. O. G ; hbes, Assistant Secretary for Education; Mr L. Wil’kes, cierli, Education Department; Mr J. Barr, reporter, ‘New Zealand Times .; Mr <3* O. Browne, reporter, ‘New Zealand Times’ ; Mr G. P. Brown, reporter, ‘ New Zealand Times ’; Mr E. J. Le Grove, Parliamentary committee reporter.

“From the evidence given, your com-

mictee find that the infoaunation upon which the articles in the ‘New Zealand Times’ were based was burnished to that paper by Mr Emil Schwabe, who is one of its Parliamentary reporting staff. In examination this witness was pressed to disclose the source of his information, bu(c refused to do so. In consequence of this refusal, your committee are tunable to inform the House as to the person by whom the information was furnished to Mr Schwabe, or

as to the manner in which he became possessed cf it. ‘‘Tour committee, therefore,/- are of opinion that the witness is guilty of contempt, and they recommend that he be fined in the sum of £ls; and that in the future, in any similar case, a witness so offending be disqualified from occupying a seat in the Rress Gallery o-f the Mouse. “As regards the ‘New Zealand Times’ newspaper, your ccunmittee recommend that the publisher be fined in the sum of £25. “With respect to the order of reference of Wednesday, the 16th September, relating to the publication by the < Lyttelton Times ’ of similar matter to that published by the £ New Zealand Times, ’ your committee considered the correspondence referred to them, and were of opinion that it was not necessary to call evidence thereon, the facts being sufficiently disclosed, by the correspondence in question. Although a breach of privilege has been committed, they are of opinion that, in view of the whole circumstances, the case will bo met by cautioning the editor as to the necessity for exercising greater care in the future in regard t-o the publication of information which by reasonable inquiry would have been discovered to be of a confidential and privileged nature.” Tho Premier moved that the report be adopted, and that the recommendations made be given effect to. Probably members would think, if the committee erred at all, it was on the side of clemency, in respect to the amount of the fine recommended, seeing that in a former case the fine •was only £ls, but the fine practically amounted to £4O, for, although the reporter was nominally mulcted in £ls, the paper would no doubt pay bis fine. The committee thought chat as far as the reporters were concerned, they were in the gallery at the pleasure of the House, and such being the case, he thought the recommendation of the cemmi/ttee would have a most salutary effect. In respect to the information that had been, published, it was satisfactory to know that the documents themselves were note seen. As for the reporter, how he managed to get it, nothing was ascertained, but in, the course of evidence it was clearly disclosed that neither the paper nor tho reporter had seen the original documents, so that the inference was that the information had been culled from the original documents, typewritten and placed somewhere where the reporter got it or was given to him. The witness who was contumacious could have been brought before the House, and the question put to him by a full House. Whatever there was in. the code of hon-

our the observance of which prevented tho reporter divulging the source-of his information, whilst commending it, hi the same time the House could not allow its rules to be trcatcfl with contempt; and under tho circumstances the House would do well to adopt the committee’s report, in respect to the “Ly’ctelton Times,” the explanation given was that the information was taken from the ‘New Zealand Times' and some portions from public documents, and, therefore, the committee considered that this case would be met in die manner recommended. The motion was adopted. (“New Zealand Times.’’) The Parliament of New Zealand has for years maintained an holtikodo of franK hostility to the newspaper press—an attitude that is .specially surprising rn view of the facts that the majority of members owe their success in pci it-.os to the influence ci the newspapers, and that there are usually at least a dozen members of the Lower House and five or .six of the Upper Chamber who are ex-journalists or proprietors of newspapers. The hostility is shewn by the stubborn refusal of Parliament to enacc a trifling amendment of the libel laws which would place tlrs country on an equality with Great Britain in the master of publishing and commenting upon news in the public interest. It is also demonstrated by the virulence with which the Ho lire of Representatives proceeds against newspapers that commit some sight breach of Parlia.mentary privilege. Jealousy may be at the root of this antagonism ; for it cannot bo denied that the “fourth estate of die realm” is continually getting the better of the Legislature, and that the latter, in its efforts to maintain its dignity, is usually successful in making itself ridiculous. The spectacle of Parliament opposing‘the reasonable liberty of the press is peculiarly anachronistic in a democratic country that prides itself upon ‘taking the lead in advanced legislation anyl upon the fullness with which itfc “trustls tho people.” Wo have no desire to deal harshly with Parliament, for tho aspect of in.tMn.ocrs last Wednesday, when dealing with alleged breaches cf privileges was one of such abject shamefaced ness time pity, rather than contempt, was the predominant feeling on the part of_ spectators of the sorry farce; but in yulstice to ourselves and staff, and especially for the vindication of the right of the press to report and discuss public matters, it is necessary these we should make some reference to the proceedings that culminated in Wednesday’s silent vote. Some ‘three weeks ago the “New Zealand Times” was fortunate- enough to secure for publication very full and accurate information regarding certain important proposals for the amendment of the law regarding the system of primary and secondary education. This was, on the face of it, news that ought to be placed in the possession of the public at the earliest, opportunity; there was no- moans of our knowing that the information was privileged or confidential; and accordingly the news was published. Parliament at once saw, however, that one of its sacred privilege's had been invaded, and after proceedings extending over a fortnight and costing probably over £IOO of the taxpayers’ money, the Uckiso on Wednesday adopted a report cf tho Commit it eo cf Privilege, recommending that the enterprising reporter who obtained clio information be fined £ls and the publisher of this journal £25. The offence of the reporter was ethyfe-d to be “contempt,” consisting cf his refusal to disclose ’the 4 source of his information ; what the offence of the unfortunate publisher was supposed to be does nwt appear, yeti the fine imposed upon him is greater. In the lump, Parliament values its dignity and privilege at £4O —certainly not an extravagant estimate on tho face of it, though, in view of facts already referred to, it may appeal* to some people to be an absurd over-valuation. These people may even recall the story of tho man who, on being fined £5 for contempt of Court, exclaimed: “Is that all? Why, £SO would not adequately express the contempt I have for this Court!” Apart from the absurdity and injustice of 'the whole proceeding, there are some aspects of this matter that demand consideration. It will be seen from the report of the committee tliaic tlio “Lyttelton Times” was bracketed with ourselves in the charge of publishing privileged matter. Tho editor of our contemporary, with generous selfabnegation rather than with any desire to shirk responsibility, explained that he had copied the matter from the “New Zealand Times,” thus giving us full credit for enterprise in the public interest, and on this plea the committee and the House resolved- that no further proceedings bo taken against the Christchurch paper. They added, however, a “onut-ion” to the editor, and proceeded to instruct him in the proper discharge of his journalistic duties. The warning and gratuitous instruction will no doubt be received with all the respect an/d gratitude due to the exalted and well-informed quarter from which they emanate. The curious fact, however, is that the plea on which our Christchurch contemporary walls “discharged with a caution” applies with equal exactness to the case of the *' New Zealand Times.” The evidence

taken by the committee shows, and members of tho House have themselves confessed, that th® documents from which our information! was drawn had been public property long before we published tho articles complained of; that theso documents had been handed about and discussed; that of the thirty to fifty copies of each that were printed several were missing, and that as regards one of the documents “ no special secrecy was enjoined regarding it.” We arc informed that a newspaper reporter in another city had these documents in his possession a week before wo published them. lie refrained from making use of them, not from any knowledge that they were privileged, but because he expected, as the most natural and inevitable thing, that the Parti'.mentary representative of his paper would send on a “precis” of them at once. Yet, for publishing matters that wore thus freely handed about and discussed, two employees of the “ New Zealand Times” are called upon to pay £4O! It would surely be more in accord with the eternal fitness of things if the journal that obtained advance information (which was practically copied by every papor in the colony, with the exception of “a oortain newspaper”) were to bo rewarded for its enlightened enterprise. But, no; it had trodden on a particularly soft- Parliamentary corn, ami Parliament’s offended dignity had to be appeased by a sacrifice. • Another aspect, or the matter' lias a serious bearing. Not content with taking the unprecedented course of fining tho particular reporter who was found guilty—on pure assumption—of bringing the information to the office, the House proceeded to threaten that any reporter who so offended in future would be “ disqualified from occupying a seat in the Press Gallery of the House.” Tho particular offence for which expulsion is threatened is that of refusing to disclose sources cf information ; this, despite the- fact that a journalist’s duty to preserve secrecy is quite as sacred as that a priest or a medical man; despite, too, the- Premier’s assurance that ho had every respect for this journalistic code of honour. Now, what does this mean ? It means that a newspaper reporter, who is bound to do his hast for his paper, and to hold inviolate any confidences reposed in him, is to be punished by Parliament .and perhaps deprived of his means of livelihood, for standing fast by the code of honour and following the strict* line cf duty. Surely no more lamentable, demoralising 'and unjust threat was ever held out by the High Court cf Parliament in any* country since the days of John Wilkes. Yet in a House of tho leading men, of New’ Zealand, a dozen of whom . are* exjournalists or newspaper proprietors there was not one man enough or democrat enough to pro test against this monstrous proposal. A sorrier exhibition of pusillanimity it is impossible to conceive. This is a matter of* which the last has certainly not been heard. There is an Institute of Journalists in New Zealand, and the various branches of that, body, if they are at all jealous for the rights of the profession, will surely enter a vigorous pretest against the disgraceful threat to coerce journal is in into committing breaches of confidence and transgressing against their most cherished traditions. We are happy to say that throughout the whole of the inquiry, despite threats' -of severe treatment, and insidious efforts to extort admissions, by distorting wdiat had been said, not one journalist who was examined wavered in the slightest from the line of duty or proved false in the least degree to the unwritten ethical law that governs them in their dealings with the public. Parliament, instead of seeking to undermine the ethics of the profession—ethics that have come to be recognised in Courts of Law, which frequently refuse to deal with the conscientious journalists who decline to violate confidences —ought to have sought to maintain and strengthen them. Truly, our Legislature, in its blundering attempt to uphold an obsolete and ridiculous standing order, has placed' itself in a most unenviable position.

The only thing that can he said m favour of ip embers of the House is that they appear to be painfully conscious that they are actors in a solemn farce. If there was not a “conspiracy of silence” entered into with regard to the proceedings cf Wednesday, there was a markedly unanimous desire shown to get the disagreeable business over as expeditiously and unostentatiously as possible. Individually, members are very good fellows and for every one of them apart and in his private capacity we have great respect and in some cases admiration; but- when they combine to take action against the press they bring Parliament into ridicule and “exalt the horn” of the enterprising newspaper man. Parliament c is of course a Court from whian there 53 no appeal, save to-public ophvidn, h ace cm* duty to place the facts before cor readers and to protest against the glaring injusrtc -> of fining people without giving them a chance to he heard in their own defence Not only was 110 opportunity given (or our reporter and publisher to defend themselves, but the accused persons were subjected to the inquisitorial , French t method of judicial torture, i.v

being examined on oath, so that th *y might bo entrapped into making unguarded statements. The wholp mat vie strongly emphasises the need lor reform of Parliamentary methods. The paltry penalty is nothing; we daresiy, if this wero a struggling journal/, the amount could be raised in shilling subscription within twenty-four horn's; but what is of real moment and concern, both to press and public, is the fact that jcninalists are being punished and threatened for doing their duty by providing the people with information that ’s of vital importance to them. The Legislature which is so very sensitive about restraining its own verbosity and obstructiveness would, in fact, like to “gag” the press of tho colony. In tne ultimate fight on this question ihe peoplo will decide, and wo have no doubt to which side the victory w\ll fail.