M.P.’s Still Lament Lack of Publicity

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 747, 21 August 1929, Page 9

M.P.’s Still Lament Lack of Publicity

REPORTS OF SPEECHES ANOTHER PROTEST MADE (The SUV'S Parliamentary Re-porir. WELLINGTON, Tuesday. Having had their say. and having seen the results of the same in the various newspapers of the Dominion, Labour members of Parliament and members of the Government Party are apparently not satisfied with what appears. Another protest, this time from Mr. H. E. Holland. Leader of the Labour Party, was made in the House of Representatives this afternoon about allegedly biased Press reports of members’ speeches. The Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Ward, endorsed the protests. Mr. Holland asked whether, in view of the marked discrimination shown by certain newspapers in the matter of reporting speeches from different sections of the House, the Prime Minister would take steps to secure fair and impartial reports. He said that he would direct the Prime Minister's attention particularly to the Wellington “Dominion." and to some extent to the “New Zealand Herald” and the “Auckland Star.” Last week the report of the speech of the member for Mid-Canter-bury-, Mr. D. Jones, had been reported almost in full, while that of the member for Lyttelton, Mr. J. McCombs, was practically suppressed. The same applied to the speech of the member for Stratford, Mr. W. J. Poison. The member for Auckland Central, Mr. W. E. Parry, and the member for Raglan, Mr. W. L. Martin, who replied to him, were cut down to a minimum, and the alleged reports of their speeches conveyed no real idea of what was said by either member. Earlier in the session the speech of the member for Mid-Canterbury had been comprehensively reported, while that of the Minister of Education, the Hon. H. Atmore, in reply, was condensed to suppression point. Would the Prime Minister consult with Mr. Speaker with a view to making the provision Mr. Holland was asking for? The Prime Minister replied that he had noticed the difference in the reporting. He thought the House gen erally had. It was not fair. The speech of the member for Mid-Canter-bury, which he thought was one of the most unfair he had ever listened Mr. Speaker: Order! Order! X am afraid the Prime Minister is referring to a past debate. (Laughter.) “I noticed that the speech of the member for Lyttelton—which was a capital speech.” the Prime Minister continued, while Reform members laughed, “and a. complete answer to the speech of the member for MidCanterbury— Reform Members: No! No! “On every material point raised.” Here the Prime Minister was again called to order for reference to a past debate. The Prime Minister continued that he did not know how the difference in the reporting could be met. The House would take an opportunity of putting its views on record in an endeavour to educate the public on the unfairness that had been distinctly established by having speeches on one side reported in full and the replies to them suppressed. That was absolutely unfair. A Labour Voice: Can’t we deprive them of their privilege? Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata) claimed that his speech was not reported at all in the “Auckland Star.” The Prime Minister, amid laughter, said that he did not think anyone would have reported the speech Had it been reported, he would not have read it. “If there is any way in which we can obviate discrimination in reporting,” he concluded, “it will be cheerfully done.”