WHOSE THREAT?

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 131, 30 November 1939, Page 12

WHOSE THREAT?

A very definite threat, against critics of the Government is made in the latest issue of "The Standard," the "official organ of the New Zealand Labour Movement." Following the Prime Minister's statement that there was "a definite move to sabotage the Government's war efforts," the paper quotes, as alleged evidenSe of that sabotage, meetings held by business men, farmers, and others, criticism of the Government, and reports of meetings. It calls upon the Government, to take steps under the War Regulations to "put an end to these tactics." The demand for. prosecution or other action in suppression, of free criticism is directed particularly at the Press, and generally at all critics. The evidence quoted of so-called breaches of the regulations by the Press comprises four items: a report dealing with the shortage of tea, complaints of conditions in military camps, publication of lists of goods likely to be in short supply and a photograph showing empty warehouse shelves, criticism in reports and editorials of the Reserve Bank Amendment Act arid the Import Regulations. ;

Whether the War Regulations could be stretched to cover such criticism and reports cannot be' stated; but it can be said most emphatically that such a use of the regulations would be entirely contrary to their proclaimed purpose, and to the oft-repeated assurances of Government that it is the defender of freedom of speech. The matters covered by the reports are questions wh^ch are being discussed everywhere publicly and privately. They concern mainly the pre-war policy of the Government. If they are not to be discussed by business 4 men, members of Parliament, and other persons interested, and if the Press is not to report or comment upon statements, then there is an end to freedom of speech and the freedom of the Press., Criticism and dissatisfaction are driven, underground, and the only unity of the nation attainable is a unity based not on free will, but on- suppression and compulsion.

We do not think that the Government, though it has gone beyond fairness in use of the national broadcasting system and has been extravagant in complaints of criticism, would contemplate such a disastrous step. But the threat is made by a newspaper which is described as the "official organ of the New Zealand Labour Movement," and it cannot be dismissed offhand as merely a foolish outburst produced by irritation at the accumulating evidence of opposition to the' Labour Government. The paper has been used as the medium for circulating hints and veiled threats of action against critics from the Government itself. This latest threat is "The Standard's" own; but the public have the right to know whether the official organ is expressing the official Government viewpoint. Threats of this kind are a definite obstacle to national unity. The people of New Zealand are not to be coerced or frightened into meek submission to a policy, which began before the war and is being carried on still. The Prime Minister has claimed the right of his Government to carry on the policy, and that carries with it the right of all sections of the public to criticise that policy. If the policy is to be continued and the criticism forcibly prevented, we .have nothing less than dictatorship. The Government should promptly and plainly state whether the article with its direct threat to liberty and its insulting reference to responsible and loyal citizens of high repute, as "enemies of the State" represents- the Government attitude and intentions. If it does ~not, the article should be emphatically repudiated.