The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1937. GOVERNMENT AND PRESS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 281, 26 November 1937, Page 6

The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1937. GOVERNMENT AND PRESS.

For the cause that iackt a**i»tane*, For the wrong that need* resistance, For the future in the distance. And the good that we can do.

The Government's Bill restricting newspaper publication has not yet reached the House of Representatives, so that its contents nre not known to the public. It has, however, been reported and not denied that the Bill will require the signing of editorial articles, reports of all kinds, and letters, if any of these deal with "political" matters. On this basis there has been a public discussion of tho Bill in Wellington. Though no more precise information is available, the Bill may at any time be brought down and quickly passed, and newspaper readers need information as to its consequences, so far as they can be foreseen at present. This can be given without, at this stage, commenting on the motives which inspire the Bill, the principle (if any) upon which it is based, or the fundamental principle which it attacks.

First of all, it has been pointed out that n law somewhat similar to that proposed in New Zealand is in force in Australia. The similarity is less important than the difference. Jn Australia the Act is applicable only during the jn'riod of a Federal election campaign, which period begins on the issue of the writ for the election, nnd ends when the writ is .returned. The Act does not require leading articles to be signed. » Reports of political meetings may be published without signature so long as they do not contain any comment, other than comment made by a speaker at the meeting. The limitation of the period during which the Act is operative ia of great importance. It has been reported that the New Zealand Bill will, if passed, be applicable throughout the whole term of Parliament.

The purpose of requiring editorial articles to be signed is not clear. There was such a requirement in the Australian legislation

(which, it should be added, is not applicable in State elections), but it was deleted in 1928. Leading articles are written by members of the editorial staff after consultation and study, and when pnMTshed they represent the views of the newspaper upon the topics, "political" or not, with which they deal. Such consultation is not neeessarily confined to the editor and editorial writers; it may be extended to other persons, not associated with the newspaper, who have expert knowledge on particular matters. The article, when written and published, approximates to the consensus of opinion of several persons; the question of who has written it, from the viewpoint of the public, is unimportant. The practice of newspapers in New Zealand in this respect is the same as that in other countries, an 4 it will, of course, continue.

; "'"The proposed prohibition of anonymous letters on "political" topics deserves the earnest consideration of the public. The difficulty in these times of distinguishing "political" from other topics need not be stressed. A citizen who writes to a newspaper to say that the rates in his borough are unbearably high may not have "politics" in his mind when he writes, but if he asserts (what may be true) that the rates have been raised because the Government's legislation has increased costs, his letter will not be published if he declines to sign it. Nor will the Answering letter (if anonymous) of someone who asserts that the Government has had nothing to -do with the increase in rates. Writers of letters have many reasons for not wishing to sign their names, and although newspapers wohld prefer that alLr letters should be signed, they recognise that the reasons for anonymity are usually sound ones. Particularly is this the case with letters written by professional men and women. A lawyer or a doctor may write givipg facts, drawn from his experience, of the effects, or possible effects, of legislation passed or to be passed. That is usually valuable information; it may result (or has in the past resulted) id the legislation being modified. But if signatures are required of all published letters, no doctor, lawyer or accountant can be expected to write to the newspapers, and for two reasons apart from personal ones. First, the facts which he would make public anonymously might amount to a breach ot confidence if his letter appeared over his name. Secondly, if a member of his professional | ssociation, he is discouraged, if not prohibited, from in effect seeking publicity for his name.

The Government's purpose in having the Bill framed will presumably be fully explained when the time conies. Meanwhile it is legitimate to point out that eertain gleeful expectations have been aroused. A correspondent of the Wellington "Evening Post," a strong supporter of the Labour movement, after affirming that "hundreds like myself vill always demand the right to criticise our banner-bearers when we deem it justified; but in the right place and at the correct time," concluded by saying: "The Government has too big a job on to bother with minnows, .'arge or smail, bnt possibly a few rats would be uncovered by the proposed and welcome legislation." i Readers may be left to reflect upon the significance of that statement.