The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1941. LABOUR INTOLERANCE

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 172, 23 July 1941, Page 6

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1941. LABOUR INTOLERANCE

rrHOSE who remember some of the characteristics of the Labour party when in Opposition must often marvel at the change which has come over it since it became used to the sweets of office. Once, when icci by Mr. Holland, it spoke up strongly upon cvocy occasion for the right of free speech, and its members used that right to the full. The Government of the day had to listen, in debate after debate, to torrents of Labour denunciation. For what it did, as for what it did not do, the most malevolent motives were commonly attributed to it. To such attacks it replied, but without questioning the rigat of the Opposition to say what it professed to think. But when Labour formed the Government a change came over it. The party, and its supporters, revealed themselves as intolerant of criticism, whether uttered in the House or out of it. More than that, they revealed a desire, which nas increased with the years, to stop the mouths of critics, especially when the criticism was well founded. Though no previous Government had ever received more publicity for its members and its policies, it revealed a desire to gag the Press, and once came almost to the point of attempting to do so. When four colonels from the best of motives expressed with the state of the Dominion's defences, the Government penalised them, though everything they said was proved by experience! to have been true. In that case the Government had power to stop criticism, and it used it. Other critics it could not stop, out there have never been lacking plain indications that in the Government party there are members who, if they could, would silence the critics of Labour while allowing full freedom to themselves. The outbreak of war afforded a pretext to the Government for restraining criticism, and it seized upon it. Nothing was easier than to say that criticism was detrimental to the war effort, even though such criticism was usually actuated by a desire to intensify the war effort. It was easy, too, under the plea of war necessity, to issue a never-ending series of regulations, the net result of which is that in the Dominion now there are more restrictions upon free speech and publication than in England or in any other Dominion. This is so in spite of the fact that the political Opposition in New Zealand has been exceedingly mild in its criticisms. Anyone who remembers the severity of the criticism of the Chamberlain Government until it fell, or observes the attacks made upon the Federal Government by the Labour Opposition in Australia to-day, can have no doubt upon that point. But still It seems, some Government members are not satisfied. The attack made yesterday by Mr. Hodgens, M.P., on the Government s critics deserves to be studied and to be remembered Mr Hodgens, strangely enough, was talking at the time about national unity and he suggested that leaders of various phases of national life should oe co-opted and brought into the Cabinet. In principle that is a sound suggestion, but Mr. Hodgens made it clear that this change should occur only after an election which LaDour had won! The co-opted members would then have no equality of status, for they would be subject ultimately to the will of the Labour caucus. This would be a useful method of disarming potential critics while presenting a facade of political unity. Mr. Hodgens went on to say that he would not co-opt "newspaper editors, or presidents of chambers of commerce and manufacturers' associations," thereby paying them an unintended compliment, and as for the present head of the Farmers' Union he should oe "behind prison bars." This remark Mr. Hodgens made "without the slightest hesitation." Nevertheless, after dinner, and perhaps an interview with his leader, he withdrew it and apologised for it his excuse being that he felt strongly "about any criticism of' the Government and its war effort." The public can form its opinion as to whether the remark or the apology was the more sincere. The puWic can also note the blustering resentment which the Hon Mr Semple has recently expressed of criticism of the "blackout" and of the publication of a prediction concerning changes in the control of the Home Guard, and it can judge whether or not one of the freedoms for which our men are fighting abroad is entirely safe in the custody of its Government at home.