PARLIAMENT AND THE "GAG."

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 307, 21 September 1908, Page 6

PARLIAMENT AND THE "GAG."

If anything wore wanted to emphasise the folly of the House of Representatives in agreeing to the " gag " clause of tho Socond Ballot Bill, it was furnished by the treatment accordcd to that clause in the Arbitration Act Amendment Bill which proposed to suppress the publication of " any expression of approval or disapproval " of any strike or lock-out that might be "taking place.or impending." Just as tlje Piujie Minister and tho Attorney-Gene i:ae wore unablo to support tho " gag" clause of the Second Ballot Bill by anything better than unconvincing sophistries and tho most absurd charges against the newspapers, so Mn, Mim-ar found it impossible to bring forward on behalf of the " gag " ukusc

of the Arbitration Bill a single argument that was not plainly repugnant to common sense or to common justice. His whole case was contained in his most extraordinary contention that " if a strike was to be quickly settled, the less published about it the better." No doubt the less published about anything that cannot endure the light of publicity and the fresh air of open discussion, the better for those associated with it. But wo in New Zealand have not yet come to the pass when the methods of the Russian censor will be submitted to without i protest. Bad as the case for the clause was, it was yet surprising that the Minister should have argued an identity between the obnoxious clause and the clause in the Gaming Act which prevents the publication of the amount of dividends in horse races. There is no analogy between the two cases. The press acquiesced in the clause in the Gaming Act only because no public interest necessitated the publication of the amount of dividends. But the public interest demands the free ventilation of strikes and lock-outs. The feeling of the House was so emphatically against the Minister that he had ultimately to submit to the deletion of the clause. In the course of the discussion some very valiant things were said about the rights of the press by one or two members who had supported the Second Ballot Bill on the third reading. It is significant, however, that most of the members contented themselves with a silent vote against the clause. By their vote they affirmed their opposition to the Government's new craze for the suppression of freedom of spcech; by their silence they showed themselves afraid to oppose openly a principle that they had supported only a few days previously. In the interval have awakened to a full sense of their action in connection with the Second Ballot Bill. The debate indicated pretty clearly that at present the House is opposed to the specially _ obnoxious clause in that wholly obnoxious measure.