FREE PRESS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 193, 17 August 1942, Page 2

FREE PRESS

ANOTHER ROUND WON MR. W. M. HUGHES' SPEECH (0.C.) SYDNEY, August 15. Once again the newspapers by presenting a united front have won another round in the argument for a free Press. The cause of the dispute was the statement issued last week by the Federal U.A.P. Leader, Mr. W. M. Hughes (reported at the time), who said that the Japanese should never have been able to land at Buna and Gona in New Guinea, and generally urged a more aggressive spirit in the Pacific war.

On Tuesday of this week, both morning papers in Sydnev (Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Telegraph) prominently displayed another statement by Mr. Hughes. He alleged that before Press correspondents in Australia had been allowed to cable h' s first statement to their papers it had been so censored as to completely alter its meaning in some instances.

Mr. Hughes also said that on Friday of last week he had given the newspapers a statement protesting against this, and again on Saturday, but on both occasions the censorship had prohibited publication of it. He gave the newspapers a third statement this week and, defying the censorship, they published it.

"Censorship was Political"

The papers also published along with Mr. Hughes' statement comments by political leaders and other people such as Dr. Frank Louat, a constitutional authority. The point of their complaint was that Mr. Hughes' original statement had not contained anything that was not already well known to the enemy, and that the censorship of it therefore was political—against which both the Menzies Government and the present Curtin Government have declared themselves to be firmly opposed.

The argument went on until Thursday, when it was discussed at the War Council. Mr. Curtin's reply was that it was the censor's business, and that if he were to interfere with trie Chief Publicity Censor (a former newspaper editor, Mr. Bonney), that In ™i? would be political censorship The papers replied to this that Mr. Curtin was evading the issue, and that as Minister in charge of Censorship and Prime Minister, he must constitutionally accept responsibility. Mr. Hughes Knew the Facts Mr. Curtin and Dr. Evatt were on stronger ground when they pointed out that Mr. Hughes as a member of the War Council knew all the facts, and that it was strange if he was so dissatisfied as he appeared to be that he had said nothing there. The end of it all was that the Government will not prosecute the papers for their breach of the censorship rules by publishing Mr. Hughes' second statement, and Mr. Cjjrtin will have ai talk with Mr. Bonney about the administration of the censorship. An amusing contribution to the argument was made by the Daily Mirror, which pointed out that Mr. Hughes, now the complainant, in 1917 signed an order to prosecute Mr Curtin, then secretary of the Timber Workers' Union, for publication of matter opposing conscription. Mr. Curtin was helcl in custody, but was released on appeal. The Mirror added; "So far there is not the slightest suggestion that Mr. Hughes will be detained."