CENSORSHIP IN AUSTRALIA

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24237, 20 April 1944, Page 5

CENSORSHIP IN AUSTRALIA

MR CALWELL’S PLACE ON COMMITTEE OPPOSITION LEADERS’ STATEMENT, y (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright). (Rec. 11.30 p.m.) SYDNEY, April 19. The Leader of the Federal Opposition (Mr R. G. Menzies) and Mr A. W. Fadden to-day demanded the exclusion of the Minister of Information (Mr A, A. Calwell) from the Parliamentary Committee on Censorship. “We do not think the committee should deal with the question of publicity censorship with its present personnel,” they said in a joint statement. “Mr Calwell, a member of the committee, is the chief defendant. It is too much like going to law with the devil and holding the case in hell. "In view of what happened this week the committee should be reconstructed. We have little doubt that Mr Calwell will appreciate his own difficulties and the impropriety of his remaining a member of the committee.” The “Sydney Sun’s” political correspondent says that the Government is marking time on press censorship, probably until the High Court has dealt, with the actions between the Commonwealth and the newspapers. Several Ministers, says the correspondent, believe that the Commonwealth Governhient’s prospects of carrying the referendum have been seriously jeopardised. “The demand by Mr Menzies for reassembling Parliament to deal with the recent developments might be a serious embarrassment. “The feeling among those closest to Mr Curtin is that he has been badly let down and that the favourable prospects of his overseas trip may have been affected by the developments at home.” There is no indication that the Act-ing-Prime Minister (Mr F. M. Forcle) will agree to Mr Menzies's request for an immediate summoning of Parliament. As the entire matter of censorship remains sub judice until the High Court has given final judgment, Ministers will not comment. Dispute Which Led to Bin The dispute which led to the banning of Sydney,' Melbourne, and Adelaide newspapers on Sunday and Monday is described by the Sydney correspondent of the New Zealand Press Association. He says it was the culmination of a conflict between the Commonwealth Minister of Information (Mr Calwell), who controls the censorship, and the chairman of the Australian Newspaper Proprietors’ Association (Mr R. A. Henderson). On Wednesday of last week Mr Calwell, defending his department from criticism which ■ resulted from misunderstandings in the United States about the'proposed reductions in the strength of the Australian Army, attacked the newspapers. On the. Friday Mr Calwell attacked Mr Henderson, who. stated that the Minister was diverting public attention from his own failures by making baseless charges against other people. Mr Calwell accused Mr Henderson of untruthfulness and inaccuracy in his statements that,, because of the censorship, most correspondents of American papers had been withdrawn from Australia and that Australian correspondents had not been able to inform their papers truly of Australia’s efforts. Mr Calwell threatened. to have Mr Henderson called before a Parliamentary Censorship Inquiry Committee, “where his and other wild and exaggerated statements will have to stand the lest of cross examination. The account of what subsequently happened is from the Sydney “Daily Telegraph.” Its publication was originally banned but was permitted by the High Court order. The paper said: “To these accusations reflecting on his personal integrity, Mr Henderson replied.” The “Daily Telegraph” desired to publish both Mr Calweli’s and Mr Henderson’s statements in full, but this Intention was frustrated by the State publicity censorship. Reply Censored “The censor cut most of the matter in Mr Henderson's statement, but allowed the Minister’s statement to appear complete. The passages deleted from Mr Henderson’s statement were most important because, with dates and facts, they endeavoured to answer the essential points raised by the Minister.” Contending that most of Mr, Henderson’s reply did not fall within the legitimate scope of the censorship, the "Telegraph” listed instances of internal and cable censorship on industrial and political events. Two examples were of criticism of Mr Calwell, Following this action by the censorship Mr Henderson made a second statement which included the following; “The censoring of my reply is merely another example of the abuse of the censorship in this country. Mr Calwell, who made the attack on me, is the Minister responsible for the censorship. His concept of freedom is clearly shown to be freedom to do and say what he wants himself, but to deny that freedom to the other fellow. • “Mr Calwell made a statement accusing the Australian newspapers, in effect, of engaging in anti-Australian, fifth-column activities in the United States, to the embarrassment of the Government. When I sought to answer this vicious and untrue suggestion he made a further attack ,on the Australian newspapers and a violent and personal attack on me.” Mr Henderson added that when he endeavoured to reveal to the public some facts showing the truth of his statements all the-examples were censored. All were examples of political censorship. "With this weapon of wartime regulation up his sleeve, Mr Calwell Is free to make venomous personal attacks on individuals and then prevent them from giving the facts that would answer him.” Mr Henderson’s second statement concluded: “This comes from a man who, when the occasion suits him, prattles of democracy, freedom, and the rights of the individual.” This second statement and a, . “Sunday Telegraph” leading article'on the subject were banned. The pensors instructed the newspapers to fill up all the blanks left in the printed material. When the editors refused to submit to this instruction, the seizure of the “Sunday Telegraph” was ordered. This seizure led to the concerted action by all the four Sydney daily newspapers on Monday.