I.—B.

8

[P. J. NOLAN.

the circumstances of the case at all. lam entirely unaware of how the information in question was obtained—in fact, I know nothing whatever about the source from which it came. 85. You said that the first duty of a reporter was to attend to his paper, which is quite right; but I ask you, as the chief reporter of the New Zealand Times, do you think it right of a paper to publish an article the information in which "is obtained from a document marked "Strictly confidential" ? —I can hardly answer that question without knowing the circumstances. For instance, a document might come into my hands which would not bear that mark, and of course I would have no responsibility. Then, again, before I could answer the question, I should want to know who placed the mark upon the document. I mean to say that somebody might hand to me a document which might have been marked " Strictly confidential " in some irresponsible way. 86. Assuming that a document had printed on it in the same type as the Bill or the regulations themselves bear " Strictly confidential," would you, as a reporter, consider it an honourable action to publish it or hand it over for publication ?—Well, Mr. Chairman, that fact would weigh with me, but I could hardly give a straight-out answer to that question unless I knew the whole of the circumstances. 87. Bight Hon. B. J. Seddon.] —You are the chief reporter of the New Zealand Times; do you know the staff that were employed in the gallery from the sth to the Bth September ?—Five men were available for parliamentary duty, including myself; but at about that time I believe that Mr. Schwabe and Mr. Barr were the reporters in the gallery. 88. Here is one of the documents, marked in print "Confidential draft." [Produced and handed to witness.] If you saw that indorsement on a document would you consider it consistent with the traditions of journalism to publish the document or to take advantage of it?—lf this came into my hands in this way I should publish it. 89. Without asking any questions as to whether it had been stolen or obtained in a surreptitious and improper manner ?—I might not ask any questions about it; but if I were informed that the document had been stolen, of course I should certainly pause before using it. If, however, the document came into my hands without any suggestion of that kind I should publish it. 90. Although marked " Confidential " ?—Although marked " Confidential." Of course, you see, it might be marked " Confidential " for certain persons. It is very hard to answer a question like that, as I say, without knowing the circumstances under which the document was so marked. 91. You have had considerable parliamentary experience?— Yes. 92. If you knew that such a document as that was before a Committee, and was being dealt with confidentially, would you publish it?—Of course, I should hesitate considerably. I have just said that although a paper was marked "Confidential" I should publish it, but I ought to say in qualification of that that the word " Confidential " on a paper of course implies a great deal, and I should perhaps pause and make further inquiries; but at the same time if I got a piece of news which in my judgment was of considerable public importance, dealing with a matter affecting the welfare of the colony in a very considerable degree, then I should attach very considerable importance to that, and should publish the information. 93. Sir W. B. Bussell.] Can you explain in what way a piece of news can be acquired honourably or dishonourably ?--Well, a piece of news might be stolen —that is to say, papers might be appropriated by somebody. If, for instance, I were to go into the lobby of the House —the Press representatives frequently go about the lobbies —to a member's locker, turn the key, and take a document out, I should consider that extremely dishonourable. 94. On the other hand, if I were to go to the Premier's locker and take out a confidential document and hand it to you, would you be able to use that ?—Not if I knew you had gone to the Premier's locker and had taken it out. I should then know it was stolen. But if you handed it to me without any explanation whatever 95. You would not seek an explanation ?—Well, perhaps I would not. 96. Then, the question is simply one for the reporter's own conscience? —It is very largely one for a reporter's own conscience. Of course, I will admit that the fact of a document being marked " Confidential " must be weighed by a reporter ; he must attach great importance to that. 97. Hon. Sir W. J. Steward.] Supposing that a member of the House handed you one of those papers, would you consider yourself justified in using it ? If he handed to you without remark a paper marked " Confidential " relating to a public matter such as this, would you consider yourself justified in using that information?— Well, if the paper were one dealing with a great public question I should consider myself justified in using it. A public document is in a very different position from a private document. Any man who ventured even to read a private document between two parties, for instance, would be acting in an extremely dishonourable way ; but a public document dealing with a great public question like that of education, to my mind, stands upon a different footing. I should require to know who marked it " Confidential," for one thing. I would like to amplify that in this way : A reporter stands, in a certain measure, in a public position, and if he gets a certain piece of news which, in his opinion, is of great importance to the public, then, to my mind, he is entitled to use that news, unless, as I say, it was deliberately stolen. 98. Take the actual case, without putting a hypothetical one. Supposing that a member of the House had handed you this document, marked, as you see it now, " Confidential " — [produced] you see what that Bill relates to? —Yes. Well, I should view the matter in this way : this is a Secondary Schools Bill, dealing with a matter which is of great public interest, and I shall publish it. 99. Then, in point of fact, the position is this : you consider that you have a right to exercise your judgment as to what is in the public interest, irrespective of the fact that there might be printed or written upon the document the word " Confidential " ? Yes. 100. Mr. Massey.] Did I understand you to say that you saw a copy of the third article before it was published ? —That is, the copy for the newspaper, not a copy of the Bill itself.