PRESS CHALLENGE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21384, 20 April 1944, Page 3

PRESS CHALLENGE

CENSOR'S POWERS BACKGROUND OF BAN MINISTER ASSAILED (Special Australian Correspondent.) (10.30 a.m.) SYDNEY, April 20, The suppression of the Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide newspapers early this week has tended to overshadow the incidents which led to this sensational development—unprecedented in the annals of Australian newspaper history and likely to be far-reaching in its ultimate repercussions. The banning of the papers which is now the subject of High Court, litigation, was the culmination of a conflict between the Commonwealth Minister for Information, Mr. A. A. Calwell, who controls the censorship and the chairman of the Australian Proprietors’ Association, Mr. R. A, Henderson. Last Wednesday, Mr. Calwell, defending his department from criticism resultant upon United States’ misunderstandings concerning the proposed reductions in the strength of the Australian army, attacked the newspapers. Then, on Friday, Mr. Calwell attacked Mr. Henderson, who has stated that the Minister was diverting public attention from his own failures by making baseless charges against other people: Mr. Calwell accused Mr. Henderson of untruthfulness and inaccuracy in his statements that, because of the censorship, most correspondents of the American papers had been withdrawn from AusttaUa, and that Australian correspondents had not been able to inform their papers truly of Australia’s efforts. Mr Calwell threatened to have Mr. Henderson called before the Parliamentary Censorship Inquiry Committee “where his and other wild exaggerated statements will have to stand the test of cross-examination.” Intentions Frustrated The account of what subsequently happened is from the Sydney Daily Telegraph. Its publication, originally banned, was permitted by the High Court order. The paper says: “To these accusations reflecting on his personal integrity, Mr. Henderson replied that his statement covered five typewritten sheets. The Daily Telegraph desired to publish both Mr. Calwell’s and Mr. Henderson’s statements ‘in full, but this intention was frustrated by the State publicity censorship. The censor cut most of the matter in Mr. Henderson’s statement but allowed the Minister’s statement to appear complete. The passages depleted from Mr. Henderson’s statement were most important because, with dates ; and facts, they endeavoured" to answer the. essential points raised by the (Minister.” Contending that the bulk of Mr. Henderson’s reply did not fall within the. legitimate scope of censorship, the -Daily Telegraph listed instances of internal "and cable censorship on industrial and political events. Two examples were of criticism of- Mr. Calwell. Following this action by the censorship, Mr. Henderson made a second statement which included the' following remarks: “The censoring of my reply,” he said, “is merely another example of the abuse of censorship in this country. Mr. Calwell, who made an attack on me, is the Minister responsible for the 'censorship. His concept of freedom is clearly shown to be freedom to do and Say what he wants himself, but to-deny-tha* freedom to the other fellow. Accused of “Fifth Column’ Actions “Mr. Calwell made a statement; accusing the Australian newspapers, in effect, of engaging in anti-Austra-lian “fifth column” activities in the United States to the embarrassment of. the Government. When I sought to answer this vicious and untrue suggestion, he made a further attack on the Australian newspapers and t a violent and personal attack on. me.” Mr. Henderson added that when he endeavoured to reveal to the public some of the facts showing the truth of his statements, all the examples were censored. All were examples of political censorship. "With this weapon of wartime regulation up his sleeve, Mr. Calwell is free to make venomous personal attacks on individuals and then prevent them from giving facts that would answer him. Mr. Henderson’s second statement concluded. “This comes from a man who, when the occasion suits him, prattles' of democracy, f-reedom and the rights of the individual.” This second statement by Mr. Henderson, together with the Sydney Sunday Telegraph editorial on the subject was then banned by. the censorship authorities. To frustrate the editor’s attempt to indicate that cersorship had occurred, the censors instructed him to fill up all the blanks sp that the readers would be entirely ignorant of what had happened. When the editor refused to submit to this instruction, the seizure -of the Sunday Telegraph was ordered.

Papers’ Concerted Action,, This seizure led to concerted'action by all four Sydney daily newspapers on Monday to print all the banned material. The passages were also printed by the Melbourne and Adelaide newspapers. Each paper contained an announcement that this had been done “after consulting eminent counsel who had advised them that the publication of this material is lawful and that the censor’s action in ordering its suppression is without lawful authority. They have no means except by such publication of testing the legality of the censor’s order.” On the same day the Full Bench of the Australian High Court granted the papers an interim injunction restraining the censors from endeavouring by any means to prevent the publication of this previously banned material. The case will be heard on Friday. , -, i: •