WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 31, 6 February 1940, Page 8

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

The downright disclaimer issued by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Fraser) should settle the question of the Government's responsibility for the abuse of the censorship of private letters, of which so many correspondents have recently complained. When it was pointed out to him that the matter deleted or excised in letters from New Zealand overseas

was, in these instances of complaint, of no military significance, but mainly criticism of the Government, Mr. Fraser said that "such extreme and unwarranted interference would be an intolerable perversion of the intention of the censorship, and, if it had occurred, it was entirely opposed to the wishes and directions of the Government." The Controller of Censorship, in a statement, as the result of inquiry by the Minister, admits that in the book issued by the British Government for the guidance of censors throughout the Empire there is no reference in the rules to political matters, except that, under the heading of "Preventions," there appears the following:—"Political: Containing matter inimical to national interests, especially propaganda.", He suggests that among the many censors distributed throughout New Zealand "one or more may have given a wide interpretation to this rule, but it can be said that censors do not act, as is suggested in the complaint, on directions of Government on matters which might be referred to as 'Party Politics.'" Further, the Controller adds:

Political opinions for or against the Government are of no interest to the censorship. I desire to say that the censorship is being conducted as far as practicable in accordance with the British Government's rules, and that the Government has not directed me at any stage to have references to political affairs eliminated from cables and letters.

If the Government has given no directions on this point—and the Minister's assurance is confirmed by the Controller —who then is responsible for what Mr. Fraser describes as "extreme and unwarranted interference," "an intolerable perversion of the intention of the censorship"? The Controller speaks of "one or more" censors who "might have given a somewhat wide interpretation" to the rule he quotes, and of "very, few—not a dozen—complaints" received about the censorship. On the contrary, numerous complaints have been received, not only here, but in Auckland as evidenced by the recent discussion by the Chamber of Commerce there, and no doubt elsewhere too. Judged by these examples few letters overseas seem to have escaped the operations of the New Zealand censorship. In any event, the person or persons responsible for such a pettifogging procedure have done a deep disservice to the good name of New Zealand as a free, democratic country, and it is to be hoped the authorities will take the proper steps to prevent a recurrence of this gross abuse of the censorship.