SHARP REBUKE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21385, 21 April 1944, Page 3

SHARP REBUKE

PREMIERS : STAND STATE POLICE UPHELD REPLY TO MR. CALWELL SYDNEY, April 20. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr. W. J. McKell, has sharply re* buked the Commonwealth Minister of Information, Mr. A. A. Calwell, for attempting to interfere in State administration. Mr. Calwell had sent a telegram to Mr. McKell protesting against a statement in which the New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Mr. Mackay, explained that the State police took no part in suppressing the newspapers. Mr. Calwell said the State police should have been willing to uphold his authority and demanded disciplinary action against Mr. Mackay. In reply, the Premier indignantly denied that Mr. Calwell had any right to interfere in the administration of the State and told him that his “rash and ill-considered approach” to this problem was “typical of the conduct which had already seriously embarrassed Mr. McKell’s Government. The fact that Mr. Calwell had sent the telegram was revealed from responsible Commonwealth sources and Mr. McKell later released the text,of his reply.

Mr. Calwell, who is electioneering in South Australia, where the State elections are pending, refused to confirm or deny that the telegram had been sent. He stated, however: “It; was the duty of the State police to assist the Commonwealth police in enforcing the Commonwealth law. The failure of the New South Wales police to carry out their duty and the proud boast of Mr. Mackay indicate a most deplorable state of affairs and merit strong condemnation by the New South Wales Government.” In Canberra, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. F. M. Forde, said the Federal Parliament would not be called to consider the conflict between the newspapers and the censorship. Replying to a request by the Opposition leader, Mr. R. G. Menzies, Mr. Forde said: “There is no justification whatever to call the Federal Parliament together. The question referred to by Mr. Menzies is now subject to litigation in the High Court, and as :t is sub judice, I have no other comment." , ■ ■ In an editorial on “Parliament and the Censorship,” the Sydney Morning Herald to-day says that legal powers of the censor are but one factor in the situation which has stirred public feeling as nothing of a domestic nature, has done for many years past. Censorship Powers The Sydney Morning Herald’s editorial continues: “In suppressing six metropolitan newspapers withih 24 hours the censor and those who instructed him may or may hot have been within their iegal powers. Whether a censorship exercised in this fashion is reconcilable with the democratic way of life is a very different question and one for Parliament and the people to whom Parliament is ultimately responsible to answer. There can, indeed, be no question of greater moment for a democracy at war than the degree of restraint which may legitimately—in the political and not in the legal sense, of the word —be laid, upon the press in the name of national security.” The Sydney Morning Herald to-day states that the Commonwealth publicity censorship late on Tuesday night deleted from a dispatch sent , to the London News-Chronicle by the president of the Australian Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, Mr R. A. Henderson, excerpts from one article which was the subject' of last Monday’s High Court injunction; The matter subsequently released for cabling comprised four examples of what Mr. Henderson described as “a censorship for political purposes.” The ' passages were: “Here is the story of the tramway strike—another example of a censorship that is supposed to delete matter only on the high ground of national security. On .January 25 the newspapers were- prevented from informing the public that Mr. Curtin’s order to the men to return to work was being defied and that there would be no trams, or buses running the following morning. Would Mr. Calwell defend that instruction on the ground that the news contained t information of value to the enemy? On December 27" the publicity censor forbade the, transmission of a cable to Reuter’s containing extracts from a leading article dealing with Mr. R. G. Casey’s appointment as Governor of Bengal. On March 25 the censor forbade the despatch of a Reuter’s cable dealing with immigration generally and including am extract from a speech by Mr. Lloyd Ross.” A Sydney Sun despatch from Townsville was censored by the omission of the following words from a speech' by Alderman Aikens: “The Nazi Minister of Misinformation, , Mr. Calwell, banned a food broadcast from Townsville.”