QUESTIONS FOR HAMILTONIANS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 117, 19 May 1945, Page 4

QUESTIONS FOR HAMILTONIANS

/JUSNSORSHIP in Britain, the responsible Minister has announced, will practically end within one month. Internal censorship has already ceased. Censorship of overseas communications which might be intercepted •'by the Japanese will continue until the end of the war with Japan. Tfmz announcement by Mr. Brendan Bracken follows closely on that of the Home Secretary, Mr. Morrison, that a number of regulations restricting individual liberties have already been revoked. In New Zealand isimilar action, according to Mr. Nash, is being "considered." The difference between the Governments —one difference —is that in the United Kingdom, obviously, the "considering" had been done beforehand. Ministers there thought it important that restrictions imposed under conditions of war emergency should be removed as soon as the emergency ceased—and they have acted accordingly. Nothing in the war history of the Parliament of Westminster has been more impressive than the anxious care with which, even in days of great emergency, such as this Dominion never knew, it scrutinised and discussed proposals of the Government to restrict democratic liberties. It did so because its members were determined that Britain, while fighting tyranny, should not have tyranny imposed upon it.

What of New Zealand? Why must the Government be still "considering" whether it can do what has already been done in Britain? The ostensible reason, no doubt, is the war against Japan, and New Zealand's participation in it. But let the situation be considered: New Zealand stands in no danger from Japan. Before it could be endangered the Japanese must defeat the combined fleets of the United States and Britain. Moreover, internally, the Government has no problem, and never has had any problem, of a pro-Japanese faction. There is in the Dominion only one sentiment towards Japan—that she must be defeated as Germany has been defeated, and as soon as possible. Under these conditions, what justification, from the public point of view, can there be for continuing for a single day longer so many of the restrictive regulations which have been imposed since September, 1939? From the public point of view there can be none. The only justification of their continuance could be found from a Government point of view—the point of view that power is enjoyable; that regulations, even if only occasionally invoked, should be maintained because, once swept away, they would be difficult or impossible to reinstate; that it is convenient in administration to have the people still thinking that Government officials have authority to do anything they decide to do.

It so happens that an opportunity occurs, to the people of Hamilton, of testing the Government's sincerity in this matter. There is a byelection campaign going on, in which the Government candidate is a former member of Parliament, a member of the Parliament which agreed to the imposition of the great majority of the regulations. Let him be asked which of these regulations he considers still to be necessary. If he says he favours the removal of all of them, or most of them, let him be asked publicly to pledge himself to vote for it, not merely in caucus, but if necessary in the House. Any man, or woman, seeking the favour of the electors at this time should be prepared to promise no less. Similar questions and requests would be appropriate for any Ministers and other members of Parliament, of whatever party, who find that public business calls them to Hamilton next week. The main body of these regulations was swiftly and easily imposed. They can be as swiftly and easily removed—provided there is the will to remove them. Does that ■will exist?