CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24368, 21 September 1944, Page 4

CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS

VIEWS OF NEWSPAPER PROPRIETORS AUSTRALIAN CODE FAVOURED (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept., 20. Censorship of the press in New Zealand was discussed by the annual conference of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, which unanimously adopted the following resolution, to be communicated to the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser);— “This annual conference of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, having considered correspondence between its president and the Prime Minister regarding censorship of the press in New Zealand, unanimously endorses the proposal by its president that the New Zealand Government should adopt the main principles of the code agreed upon by the Government of the Commonwealth and the newspapers of Australia, especially that:— "(1) Censorship should be imposed exclusively for reasons of defence security: . . “(2) Censorship shall not be imposed merely for the maintenance of morale; “(3) Censorship shall not prevent-the reporting of industrial disputes or stoppages,; ■ . ' “(4) In case of a prosecution, the onus of proof shall be on the prosecutor, “Further, It is of opinion that the Prime Minister’s reply is completely unsatisfactory, since it does not give adequate reasons for not accepting the main principles of the Australian code, but merely asserts that ‘the censorship in New Zealand has been progressively relaxed over a considerable period of time.’ “This conference directs the attention, of the Prime Minister to the facts that: ' “(a) The only relaxation of censorship of which it has official advice i§ the withdrawal of certain security restrictions referring to such matters as weather reports and the movements of coastal shipping, and of a few directives relating to minor domestic matters* “(b) A’series of ‘directives’ Issued by the Director of Publicity during the period of the war, restricting or forbidding publication of information relating to matters having no bearing upon security, have hot been modified or withdrawn. / ' ; “(c) Any of these directives which, it is considered, should never- have been issued, may at any time without warning be invoked to institute proceedings involving heavy penalties. “Finally, this conference records the emphatic opinion that the law should be amended to provide that to secure a conviction the prosecution must prove that publication was prejudicial to, defence security."