PRESS AND PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1651, 21 October 1903, Page 66 (Supplement)

PRESS AND PARLIAMENT.

BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE. POSITION OF REPORTERS. In the House of Representative® on the 12t'li instant Mr Arnold asked the Premier if he was aware that considerable unrest exists in the public mind in. consequence of the report that in future any reporter who refuses to divulge to a committee of the House the source of any information lie has received and made use of which may be considered a breach of the privileges of the House shall be disqualified from occupying a seat in the press gallery of the House, thus making their livelihood less secure; and, so that the status of reporters in the press galleries of both Houses may be placed on a more definite and satisfactory basis than at present, will he set up a Joint Committee tw; report on the whole matter?.

The question was the result of th® publication recently by the “ New Zealand Times” of certain pap el’s on education that wore before a Select Committee. The reply printed by the Premier stated “ that ho was not aware that unrest existed in tho public mind, and ho had no knowledge of any report such as that referred to in the question. The decision of tho Rrvilego Committee, which was practically adopted unanimously by the House, was explicit, and went no farther than to insure due respect being paid to tho standing orders and the privileges of the House. The position of press reporters was in no way changed, and there was no disability imposed, and it was not intended to set up a Joint Committee to report on the matter. It was well tho House should strictly conserve its privileges, and whenever assailed, either by press reporters or others, to uphold and defend thorn. Failure to do this would entail serious consequences, and imperil tho rights cf tho representatives of the people. Tho question of allowing, under certain conditions, the proceedings of Select Committees, within defined limitations, to bo made public, the House having first sanctioned the same, was a matter worthy of consideration should fitting opportunity offer.

Mr Arnold was not satisfied with what lie called f ‘ ail evasive reply.” There was undoubtedly considerable unrest in the public mind that matters they should bo acquainted with were being kept from them. That feeling was not confined to the outside public; it existed within tho House. He was not speaking on behalf of the newspapers but on behalf of the reportei's who worked in the Parliamentary gallery, and ho urged that nothing should be done that would handicap them or jeopardise them in the profession by which they earned a living. If select papers wore procured by a reporter tho punishment should not fall upon him but upon tiio person or persons who gave him the papers, for everybody knew these papers were not left lying about tho floors or rooms. The Select Committee’s meetings should be open to the press, excepting when consideration was being given to papers containing State secrets that should not he made public. .He felt’that he was voicing the opinion of the majority of members of the House in this matter. Regarding the “New Zealand Times.” Mr Arnold asked the Premier if ho had seen the statement published in tha Dunedin “ Star ” that the fine recently imposed by the House had not been paid, and that there was no intention of paying it. Was this true, and what did tho Premier intend to do about it? Mr T. Mackenzie scoffed at the methods of the committees, cr “ Star Chambers.” It was high time something was done to throw them open; the public was entitled to the information, the committees themselves would benefit, and consequently the legislation of the colony would benefit. Take, for instance, the meat shops scheme, the millers’ trust question, and many others. Was it not urgent and important that the public should know what was going on, and was it not urgent and important also that any outside information bearing on such matters should be given, the committees ? Mr Baume thoroughly agreed that the position of reporters in the House ivag not what it should be, and he was satisfied that the Hous9 did not want to give any privileges to the press. It was quite wrong, and there could be no doubt whatever that if the majority of committee meetings were open to the press there would be criticisms from all over the colony that must result in good. He considered that the greatest publicity should be given to Parliamentary matters, and instead of the Premier saying that this “is a matter worthy of consideration should fitting opportunity offer,” the Premier should have made the opportunity. He could do so whenever he liked, and it was no use, therefore, of sheltering the Government and himself behind spell a reply. He would like to know if the “ New Zealand Times”, had paid the fine imposed upon that paper by Parliament. He had also read that a fine of £SOO inflicted upon Mr Watson in connection with the Bank of New Zealand inquiry had not yet been paid. If tins was correct, tho whole proceedings of Privileges Committees were a farce, for what was the use of fines being inflicted that were never paid ? Parliamentary reporters under standing order 229 now laboured under a very great disadvantage. He asked, why did not the Privileges Committee in the “New Zealand Times ” case call members of the Education Committee to give evidence? The Premier was absent from the House during the afternoon, and no further Ministerial reply was given.