BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE

Taranaki Daily News, 5 September 1930, Page 3

BREACHES OF PRIVILEGE

HOUSE ASKS EXPLANATION APOLOGY BY NAPIER NEWSPAPER. OTHER REPLY UNSATISFACTORY. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Mr. Speaker reported in the -House of Representatives to-night that he had written the editor and publisher of ,the. Daily Telegraph, Napier, informing him of the resolution passed by the House iirO, connection with the alleged breach of privilege and drawing liis attention to the words of which complaint had been ■ made. They appeared in a paragraph headed “Deliberately Lying” and referred to Mr. W. E. Barnard, member for Napier. A similar letter had been sent to Mr. S. J. McKee, a member of the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board, who was alleged to have made a statement reported by the Daily Telegraph. In reply Mr. Trevor M. Geddis, editor and publisher of the Telegraph, said in the first place he offered the. House of Representatives his since apologies for the publication of any words that, might qonsistute a breach of privilege, whether against the House. or, against Mr. Barnard as a member of the House. While making this apology he stated that no -breach of privilege or any libel had been intended. Owing to his absence the particular report had not received ids personal scrutiny. He had -subsequently* fully investigated the'.matter and as a result was led to believe that the words were a fair and accurate report- of the proceedings of the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board meeting, which had been reported by the chief reporter for his journal, whom he considered highly competent and reliable in the art of local body reporting. Further, he considered that the subject matter—unemployment and ; Mr. '■ Barnard’s actions in the matter—related to matters of public concern and the publication thereof: was for the public benefit. Such} being the case no actiofi in the ordinary way would lie against the newspaper, but from the published report of the debate in the House it seemed that the protection granted to newspapers under the law of libel did not extend to matters of privilege under the customs and precedents of the House. The difference between the law of libel and Parliamentary privilege had not been appreciated by him. -.'-i

NEWSPAPER EDITOR'S REPLY. Mr. Geddis asked the Speaker to assure Mr. Barnard that his company and himself did not wish to associate themselves with opinions expressed by any member of the hospital board. Should - the House decide that the full repor’t of the discussion in the House already given by the Telegraph was insufficient; he would be most happy to publish such further statement as might be necessary. ■ . The letter from Mr. S, J. McKee stated that at the meeting of the Hawke’s Bay Hospital Board he had made a short speech in which, as far as he could recollect, he had said “Mr. Barnard’s statement on the floor of the House was defeating the object of Air. Priest’s remarks; j made at’ the board : meeting. Mr. Priest oiiered 12s 6d per day and found (not 12s Od per week and. found as had been quoted from Han- ’ sard by a previous speaker). It is unfortunate that the statement in Hansard is not a correct report (of what was actually said by Mr. Priest); We look to Parliament, the highest authority in-, the land, to do what is right, and-this kind of thing reflects on the ability of men who are .elected to duties public bodies. If Phrliament cannot give us correct statements it is little use having a Government at all. In my opinion 20 business men could run this country better and with less expense. It looks . ; - as if Hansard could bo used (in the future) to bolster up a bad case.’’ Air. McKee’s letter continued: “I did not use the objectionable words reported in the Daily Telegraph. 1 had no intention of accusing Air! Barnard of deliberately misquoting Mr. Priest’s ofler, but I was sorry that such a statement had appeared in Hansard, where Air.. Priest could not have it corrected. For this reason I considered it only fair to Mr. Priest that the general public should know the actual oiler made. Aly remarks, therefore, were directed to a comparison between the Hansard report and the actual oiler made by Mr. Priest, and I very much regret that my words should have been reported in such a way as to suggest that I was making an attack on Air. Barnard.” ' , ' ■ ‘' ■ ■ The Hon. E. A. Ransom . moved , that . • the explanation of Air. Geddis, should be accepted and that in his case no further action should be taken. , Mr. Barnard stated that from, his point of view the editors explanation was entirely satisfactory. He did not, c■ however, agree with the remark concerning immunity under the law of libel. The motion was carried. . \ ■ . It was decided that the explanation ... received from Air. McKee was unsatis- -v. factory and evasive and that in view of the testimony of the editor and publisher of the Daily Telegraph as .to the accuracy of the report Mr. McKee should be given an opportunity of making a • further explanation before the ease was finally dealt with. ■'