N.Z. WAR CENSORSHIP

Grey River Argus, 12 August 1944, Page 6

N.Z. WAR CENSORSHIP

NATIONALIST ATTACK Prime Minister on Editors’ Censorship P.A. WELLINGTON, August 11. In the House, this morning, tne Imprest Supply' Bill was introduced by Governor-General's message. Mr. F. W. Doidge (Nat., Tauranga) said: “The war had reached its peak The people demanded two things of the Government—initiation of economies and relaxation of controls, it was high time the tyranny of censorship was relaxed, since the war danger had receded from the Dominion. There was not an editor’s table in the country which was not piled up with censorship instructions —a pile ot 'thou shalt' and ‘thou shalt not’ yards long. The censorship .now could ne wiped out overnight and war security would not be affected. We had had a tighter censorship in New Zealand in the past five years than there was in any other British country. There had never been a Government which so hated and so feared criticism as tne present Government of New Zealand. The papers were not even free to report Parliament fully.” Mr. A. S. Richards (Govt., Roskill): What rubbish ’ Mr. Doidge: “I can substantiate that. We on the Opposition benches find it necessary to refer at times tc< activities during the last war of those who now occupy the Treasury Benches but these gentle probings of ours are never reported in the Press. No editor dares report such observations because of a ‘must not’ order on his desk. This Government would like newspaper editors to be ‘yes men.’ It would like the neople of New Zealand to live in a mental concentration camp.” Despite the fact that freedom of the Press is recognised by all as a cornerstone of democracy the papers in New Zealand have been in a mental straight jacket. If this were doubted Government members could ask tne Press. They could ask members ot the Press gallery yho sat daily in the House reporting its proceedings. They know what they are allowed to report and what not. There had been an occasion when he had asked an innocent question in the House and, to his surprise, a member of the Press gallery told him later that the gallery was not allowed to report it. He took the matter up with the Speaker—then Mr. Barnard— who promised to see the Prime Minister. Later, Mr. Barnard advised him that the question could not be reported because it had been banned by the Censor. For the past five years there had been autocracy trying to suppress its incompetence by suppressing adverse criticism. At Woburn and elsewhere when strikes occurred men who originated the strike were not allowed to state their case in the Press. Was it fair to suppress one side of a case, when the other was reported fully The Chief Justice had said the powers of a Pontiff were nothing compared with the powers of a Director of Publicity. In Britain. Canada, the United States and Australia, censorship restrictions were less severe than here. In Britain, when there had been controversies between the Press and the Ministers of Information the latter always had to go. . Their heads were politically served im on a silver salver. Mr. K. J. Holyoake (Nat., Batea): Whose head are you after here ? Mr. Doidge: Well, of course, we have a Censor here, but there is power behind the censor. It is that power I am attacking at present. Was there any reason for continuing this drastic censorship. The Government was aiming at mass mental servility m trying to reduce the Press to the same standard as its own official organ, which, he said was published for people who could read but could not think. In the past five years the publication of information had been banned? newspapers, including the “People’s Voice” and “Democracy” had been suppressed; public meetings had been interfered with; even the Supreme Court had been invaded. In the Ostler case, the censor had the impudence to go into Court and usurp rights of the Judge himself, who was the only person who should determine what should and should not be published of the proceedings before him. Not even Parliament could override tha censor. He had mentioned in the House previously an article for the New Statesman, which was stonped by the censor. Critic’sm of the Government was withheld on the excuse that an accr mpanving article reflected on New Zealand womanhood. PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY. Rt. Hon. Mr. Fraser said that even if Mr. Doidge had had the semblance

of reason in his case, he had destroyed it by exaggeration, and by his defence of literary filth and immorality. The Speaker (Hon. F. W. Schramm) said Mr. Fraser’s remark was a reflection on tb-e member, and so was out of order. Mr. Fraser said there was no personal reflection intended, but he proposed to read the document to tne House and establish what he had said. There was a case to be stated against any form of censorship, but when Mr. Doidge objected to a suppression of the “People’s Voice,” a Communist newspaper that was opposing the war effort, he wondered where the member for Tauranga’s stupid antagonism to the Government was leading him. Mr. Doidge, by attacking the Government was constituting himself an advocate of the subversion being attempted at that time. In the same way, “Democracy” was stopped because it attacked Americans who had come to New Ztaland to protect us, and had also opposed the raising of the war loan. There ought to be a limit to the unscrupulousness of tne member for Tauranga. Mr. W. J. Polson (Nat., Stratford) protested at such terms being used. The Speaker ruled Mr. Fraser was out of order and must withdraw the words.

Mr. Fraser protested. He asked it there had ever been an instance of a member having to withdraw sucn expression before. Mr. T. C. Webb (Nat., Kaipara): Is the Primo Minister more than any other member entitled to challenge the Speaker’s ruling in the House ? The Speaker: Certainly not. Mr. Fraser: I do not challenge it.

Mr. Fraser said he had referred to political unscrupulousness.

Opposition members: That wasn't it.'

Mr. Fraser said he had not used the word political, but that was what he had meant. Mr. Doidge had talked a lot about the freedom of the Press. Was the Press free ?

Opposition member: No not here. Mr. Fraser said that the Press of Britain had shut down on Russian oil advertisements.

Mr. Doidge. I didn’t. I took it for the “Evening Standard.” Mr. Fraser said that was so, but it had to rest with Mr. Doidge alone to break the boycott. Mr. Fraser said he did not admit that the Press was the focus of public opinion. The whole of the New Zealand Press came out daily attacking the Government and was never interfered with except where there was a danger. He did not complain of tne attitude of the Press. It could not be otherwise when the Press was owned by enemies of Labour. Tne real censorship of the Press was done on the desks of the editors and suneditors. That was where public opinion was stifled —not by the Government I

That was where public opinion was stifled. They could not expect shareholders who were property owners to support Labour legislation that interfered with their broad acres. Tne Opposition was talking of a free Press when the Press was dominated by wealthy land and mercantile interests. Mr. Holyoake: They are fair enough to the public. What are you saying about them ?

Mr. Fraser said the Liberal Governments of the past had also been attacked by the Press. Mr. Polson: Oh, no. What about the “New Zealand Times ?” What about the “Lyttelton Times ?” Mr. Fraser: And what happened to the “New Zealand Times?” What “Lyttelton Times,” and what happened to the editors of those papers ? Mr. Polson: You get a fair deal from the newspapers. Mr. Fraser said he was not complaining about any treatment he received in the news columns of tne Press, but he was saying that censorship was in the hands of the editors and sub-editors, and that was a power not in the hands of a responsible Government, but of private interests. That did not excuse the Government or any censor if anything indefensible were done, but he did not know of anything that could be questioned, Mr. Doidge had said the censorship could be dropped because the war was over. Opposition members: That wasn’t what was said.

Mr. Holyoake: The Member for Tauranga said: “Now that victory is assured.”

Another Opposition member: Ho said “at this stage.” Mr. Fraser said he would accept correction, but as the House was orf the air he could mention a matter that showed that the censorship could not be dropped. Recently, m Australia,, an event had occurred, and, through some error or because the newspapers disregarded the cen sor, a report of it was published, and the New Zealand Government had received a frantic request from Australia to prevent publication here. Mr Fraser here told the House What the incident was and pointed oui the danger if such a thing were published. , An Opposition member: . lna< couldn’t happen -here. Mr. Fraser reminded members that

a similar thing was attempted m New Zealand.

Replying to Mr. Doiuge’s comment on the railway strike, Mr. Fraser said that what had been done then would be done in similar circumstances again, because publicity was what tne strikers had wanted; and when publicity was not given to them the strike had come to an end.

Mr. Fraser referring to the article for the “New Statesman” held by tne censor, said the censor was 100 per cent, justified in refusing to allow it to go forward, as it besmirched tne character of New Zealand girls. He agreed that the article dealing witn the Labour Party in the same envelope should not have been rejectedMr. Fraser read extracts, from tne article in question, and asked if any member could object to it being censored.

Mr. G. H. Mackley (Nat., Masterton): So we have a moral as well as political censorship. Mr. Fraser asked if Mr. Mackley considered the article should have been passed. Mr. Doidge interjected that it could be left to the good sense of the editor. Mr. Doidge rose to a point of order. He said he had been misrepresented. Th e Prime Minister had said that ne (Mr. Doidge) approved the article he had quoted. What he had said of tne article on the previous occasion was that it was cheap and nasty, though perhaps not without literary merit. Mr. R. M. Algie (Nat., Remuera) said the attention of the House had been directed away from the real issue. The Prime Minister said that the Government had suppressed tne “People’s Voice” and “Democracy” because there was no other way. There was another way—British justice. If a man did wrong, his guilt and punishment should be established and decided on by his peers, but the Prime Minister was abrogating that right to himself. When a citizen was suspect, he should be judged by a tribunal independent of all interests in the matter. The real point at issue was that in New Zealand there were three censorships—for war security, political and internal. There was an Auckland case in which ail mail going into a house had to b§ censored —submitted to the inquisitive eye of the Gestapo, even if a letter came from his son in a military camp, or from. Railway and Justice Departments.

Mr. R. M. MacFarlane (Govt., Christchurch South)»said that information could be passed by internal correspondence from one person to another, who could make dangerous use of it. Internal censorship was quite justified, since it was a wellknown fact that there were certain people who, by their activities, or their attitude to the war, were suspect. and it was quite right their mail should come under the watchful eye of the censor.

Mrs. E. Gordon (Nat., Rangitikei) : Do those people include the Minister of Justice ?

Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Central Otago) said he was astounded to learn tiiat the facts stated by Mr. Algie had been several times brought to the notice of the Minister of Justice, who failed to take action. The people were realising that the Government was an instance of “absolute power corrupting absolutely.” Mr. A. S. Richards (Govt., Roskill) said the censorship was more than justified by the leakages of information which unfortunately had taken place. There had been a prosecution in Auckland recently, which revealed that an innocent but foolish person tried to send out of the country fne time and date of a troopship leaving the country. Had the letter got away that troopship might have been torpedoed. Opposition voices: But that had reference to public safety. Mr. Richards: What other reason is there for censorship than public safety ? Mr. Doidge: To protect the Government.

Mr. Richards said that for every case ventilated in the Courts, there were numerous others which, perhaps, unfortunately could not be brought up in Courts. Had the censorship not been maintained as it had the safety of troopships and our own shoves would have been menaced. Though the debate on the censorship continued throughout the afternoon, there was little introduced 111 the way of new matter. When the afternoon paper arrived, stating that in tb.e Billens appeal case th e Full Court had given its -decision in favour of Billens, an Opposition member, Mr. M. H. Oram (Manawatu) said one editor had had courage to defy the censorship regulations. He was prosecuted for doing so, and was convicted. He appealed. A judgment, of j the- Full Court in his favour had been given that afternoon. Mr. Oram then read from the judgment and read comments of the Judges. He submitted that the judgment provided a case for a complete revision of the censorship regulations which wer e in force ; at the present time. I Hon. W. Nash said that there was nothing more important to the good government of this country than that 1 judicial authority should be respected, i

and all of its decisions adhered to, so that people could retain their faith in the Courts. “That, to me, is as important as, or more important than, anything else in the government oi this country,” said Mr. Nash. “However, it was for the Legislature to make law. The Judiciary did not have that privilege. The Judiciary had the job of interpreting the law as it found it.” Mr. Nash contended that the Emergency Regulations had been maae law. It would be a great danger to the country if it came to the people that laws had been overriden. But that had not happened. The regulations, which had been made valid law by the House of Representatives, tne Legislative Council and the GovernorGeneral, had not been challenged by the Court. Their interpretation, however, had been challenged by the Court, which, apparently, considered that the Director of Publicity had exceeded his powers.