“SALARY GRAB” CRITICISM: PRESS UPHOLDS ITS RIGHTS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXIV, Issue 934, 2 December 1933, Page 10

“SALARY GRAB ” CRITICISM: PRESS UPHOLDS ITS RIGHTS.

A Sydney Letter.

Claims Dishonesty was Not Implied: A Furious Debate in the House.

(Special to the “Star.”) SYDNEY. November 23. In previous letters the story of the “ salary grab ” has been brought to the point at which the Federal Parliament, having adjudged its principal journalistic critic guilty of contempt, decided to hold its hand pending the receipt of an expected communication from the directors of Associated Newspapers. This letter, signed by Sir Hugh Denison as chairman of directors, duly arrived, and those who expected that the “Sun” was to be forced to “ eat humble pie” on an extensive scale were speedily undeceived.

'J’HE LETTER, which was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Lyons), follows: “At a meeting to-day of the board of directors of Associated Newspapers, Ltd., the subject matter of the interview which took place on Tuesday last between one of your Ministers and three of the directors of this company was brought up for consideration. The matter 3vas discussed in all its bearings, and I was authorised" to write you in the following terms: .“ The Press, as represented by the journals published by this company, is very sensible of its responsibilities, not only to thousands of shareholders, but to the public of Australia. These papers are bound to no political party, and have in the past, and will in the future, fearlessly and faithfully discharge their duty to the public, as they see it, by criticising, when necessary, any action of Parliament or any Government, whatever the party of which it may be composed. At the same time, it will just as faithfully support any action which appears to it to be for the good of Australia, whatever the colour of the Government which may be responsible. This, you will agree, is the function and duty of a free Press. Policy and Language. “ In pursuance of this policy, the editors of the 4 Sun,’ the ‘ Sunday Sun ’ and the 4 Telegraph ’ uncompromisingly condemned the action of Parliament in increasing, at this particular juncture, and in the particular manner, the salaries payable to its members. This condemnation has the unanimous approval of the board of this company and, we venture to think, of the public opinion of Australia. So much for the policy behind the article complained of. 44 Now as to the verbiage employed. The article in question was reviewed in detail by my board to-day. It was undoubtedly garnished with somewhat highly-coloured phrases and broadly-used similes, which, being designed to arrest attention, have apparently been construed as imputations against the personal honesty of members. My board agrees that the language employed is capable of such construction, which, however, the editor of the 4 Sunday Sun ’ assures us was never intended, and you will recognise that it was not practicable to submit it to the board before publication.

“ My board unanimously, therefore, desires to offer you complete assurances that imputations of personal dishonour were not intended and regrets that many members of the Federal House should have misunderstood the position.” Righteous Indignation. The average citizen is not likely to find much fault with this letter, which is respectful and dignified enough, but members of the Federal Parliament, who were furious at finding their action called in question, had worked themselves up into a frenzy of righteous indignation at the prospect of haling newspaper proprietors and editors to the Bar of the House, and they were not prepared to pass the matter over. Mr Thorby, a Country Party member, who always tends to become emotional and irascible, maintained that 44 no body of men has ever issued a more damning document against the Parliament of this country”; he described the letter as 44 a most malicious grouping of words deliberately designed to undermine the dignity, prestige and authority of Parliament in this country,” and he

declared that “ insults have been added to injury under guise of an apology.” This is simply hysterical, but apparently the House was in the humour for it. Mr Holman, though more temperate in his language, said that he regarded the letter as aggravating the original offence by shuffling and evasion, and he further argued that the “ Sun's ” statement was a falsehood because 44 the article described the £75 as a salary increase and did not point out that it was merely a restoration of a small portion of the voluntary reduction in salary suffered by members.” The epithet “ voluntary ” is a strange one. and the whole argument is the kind of quibble that makes one wonder whether a legal training mai' not be more of a disadvantage than a benefit tp some public men. Demand for Penalty.

But other members took an even stronger stand. Mr Holman would only say that 44 the matter ought not to be allowed to drop”, but Mr Ward still wanted the offenders summoned to the Bar of the House, Mr Blakeley wanted the House to cancel the registration of Associated Newspapers till a more satisfactory apology was forthcoming, and Mr Beasley wanted the Government to withdraw all its advertisements from Associated Newspapers and to refuse the papers all postal and telegraph facilities till the directors were 44 brought to their senses.”

But in the end cooler advice prevailed. Mr Latham, who in the absence of Mr Lyons had charge of the situation, pointed out that “«the essential insinuation ” —the implied suggestion of dishonesty on the part of members—had been withdrawn, and that the directors had also expressed regret. He therefore advised the House to accept the letter, reminding members that all public men 44 are accustomed from time to time to be subjected to a certain amount of offensive language in the Press—and elsewhere.” He admitted also that 44 there were few who would disagree with the general statement of the functions and responsibilities of the Press ” as outlined in the letter. But in spite of Mr Latham’s conciliatory tone the debate was long and heated, and several amendments were moved before a decision was reached in general accordance with the Attorney-General’s recommendation.

Cherishing a Grudge. Except for this satisfactory conclusion, members did not come very well out of the controversy. Most of them talked as if they were wholly unfamiliar with such terms as the 44 Sun ” and 44 Telegraph ” had employed, and they had to be reminded by Mr Watson, an Independent from Western Australia, that 44 for years honorable members have called one another all sorts of names and by innuendo and suggestions have said things far worse than the statements which have appeared in the Press.” Mr Watson very naturally asked members “ why they are so mad about this Press criticism.” Men w r ho are in the habit of accusing each other of political trickery and dishonesty every day need hardly be so thin-skinned as this. But quite apart from the personal resentment at criticism which nearly all members displayed, it was clear that many of them bear a special grudge against the 44 Sun ” and 44 Telegraph ” and regard Associated Newspapers under all circumstances as “ fair game.”