DEFENCE SECRETS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 80, 1 October 1938, Page 8

DEFENCE SECRETS

A "MUZZLING" BILL

FEARS ENTERTAINED

POWERS OF A WIDE SCOPE

(From "Tha Post's" Reorasontativs.) SYDNEY, September 20.

Opposition is growing to the Defence Secrets Bill which the Minister of Defence (Mr. Thorby) proposes to introduce in the Federal Parliament shortly, ahd the more he tries to explain it the stronger becomes the conviction that an attempt is being made to impose a censorship which could be used to stifle criticism.

Strong opposition to the Bill is certain to break in the Government party rooms and in Parliament. Mr. Thorby will be charged with attempting to muzzle the Press. Criticism of the measure will not be confined to the Opposition. Several Government supporters are likely to condemn the restrictive measures, on the ground that similar legislation in Britain has allegedly been used to cloak administrative mistakes. -It.will-also be argued that the bill wiU be a "dragnet" in its nature, as it might provide a means of restricting comment on major Government activities, such as finance and broadcasting, which are directly or indirectly linked with defence. NATURE OF RESTRICTIONS. The Bill wiU contain drastic restriction clauses and severe penalties for breaches. Broadly, it will prohibit the publication by newspapers or xadlio stations of information which, in the Defence Department's opinion, reveals knowledge of defence proposals or of the* defence provisions of the country. It will empower senior police officers to demand of journalists the source of information on which articles displeasing to the Defence Department are based. Refusal—which will be automatic—will immediately constitute an offence. Mr. Thorby said that the Bill would not restrict the right of newspapers to criticise defence policy, or defence proposals which were announced offlciaUy. It was intended merely to prevent the publication of unauthorised information which was, or might be presumed to be, prejudicial to the interests of the Commonwealth. It'is stated that some of the provisions in.the measure, as it now stands, are based on recommendations of officers of the Defence Department, whose experience outside their Department has been limited, and Ministerial critics of the Bill believe that if the provisions are adopted in their entirety they may open up dangerous avenues for bureaucratic .dictatorship of the Press. The critics of the Bill are, likely to insist that the restrictive clauses should be confined tb the minimum necessary to safeguard defence secrets of national importance. In spite of Ministerial protestations that it is only a normal measure to prevent the publication of secret information about defence matters, it is believed in the lobbies that it will go much further than that, and will be a move to muzzle the Press and prevent the publication of defence views, which, in the public interest, should be known to aH THE PUBLIC POINT OF VIEW. Mr. Thorby claims that it is not proposed to interfere with criticism and comment, but some believe that, unless strictly .limited in Its applications, the Bill wbuld give the defence authorities the sole right to determine where the line should be drawn between criticism and news, and thus impose a rigorous censorship on all matter bearing on defence. The i Bill is regarded as a direct attack on the right of the people to know broadly what is being done for the defence of the country, and whether it is reasonable and adequate. It is admitted that many defence matters should be kept secret, and that there should be some means of preventing publication of vital information dealing with the disposition of defence installations and equipment, but it is claimed that power to deal with such cases should not be extended, at the whim of the authorities, to a general censorship.

Mr. Thorby said that the measure would be framed in a way that would make it obvious to any newspaper what could and what could not be published without threat of prosecution. When pressed, however, he admitted there would be many items that a newspaper would have to submit to an officer of the Defence Department for perusal before it could feel that it would be safe to publish it