The Times WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1941. Internal Mail Censorship

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 209, 3 September 1941, Page 6

The Times WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1941. Internal Mail Censorship

To learn that their internal correspondence was being censored came as a considerable shock to the public generally, a shock by no means eased by the statement of the Controller of Censorship, who advised that all letters sent, through the post—whether for delivery in New Zealand or overseas—are subject to censorship as required. It was then explained that but a minute proportion of the general mail could be so censored as the staff was small in relation to the enormous volume of mail provided by New Zealanders who are a great letterwriting people. It was explained that some letters are opened just at» random and others quite deliberately. Howe\er, no letter is ever opened without proper notification on the envelope.

“I do not think it is necessary to state the reasons for this course of action,” the Controller declared. Just after tlys statement was made a statement was issued in Australia declaring that no such general censorship of internal mails was there practised. In the light of that declaration there surely does seem need to state the reasons for New Zealand having a different policy. If the conditions in the two countries be compared there will be found very much less reason for such a censorship being carried out in New Zealand than would be the case in Australia. The Commonwealth has a rather more mixed population (as to racial origin) than has New Zealand. It has many more refugees of recent arrival; it has a much more highly developed key munitions industry, more direct contact with Asia, and is altogether a more important war factor and of greater strategic consequence than is little New Zealand.

Surely, if general internal censorship be not considered necessary under those Australian conditions, then is it very hard to justify it in this country? An unfortunate suspicion has arisen, quite widespread, that this censorship here may have political implications. In other quarters it is suggested that it is intended to act as a brake upon criticism in general. What is most probable is that it has been introduced just from an excess of zeal. But even though that be the explanation it does not detract from the fact that it is a very drastic innovation and, under the circumstances demands fuller explanation than has yet been offered. Frankly, one cannot see any useful purpose being served by it when applied generally. It is a severe and unnecessary restriction upon “freedom of speech.” It is quite realised that a certain amount of censorship even of internal communications is necessary, but such should be given only to definitely suspicious mails, and at the request only of the Army, Navy or Police Departments. That is something totally different to the general internal censorship objected to. The subject is one which could be well ventilated in Parliament.