Political Vendetta Denied By Press

Northern Advocate, 22 April 1944, Page 5

Political Vendetta Denied By Press

(Rec. 1.30 p.m.) SYDNEY, This Day. The Australian newspapers’ challenge of the censorship powers was not a party political issue, declared the president of the Australian Newspaper Proprietors’ Association (Mr. Henderson). The newspapers were fighting for the establishment of a fundamental principle of the democratic systemfreedom of opinion and expression oi all the people. “Freedom of expression includes liberty of the Press, and this liberty is not a vested interest of newspapers but the possession of the whole people,” he added. “This is not a controversy between Labour and antiLabour forces, between capitalism and any other ism, or between any other of the movements of thought that divide communities."

Though joining issue with the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell). Australian newspapers were not unmindful of the co-operation they had had from other sections of the Government. and the Frime Minister (Mr. Curtin) himself on all matters except censorship.

No Personal Issues

Newspapers did not wish to engage in personal recriminations. Many newspapers had given great support to Mr. Curtin’s administration, and also strongly supported the referendum proposals to give the Commonwealth wider powers. Mr. Calwell, speaking during the South Australian election campaign, said he regarded the criticism levelled against him as part of a huge conspiracy to discredit liie Federal Government, and as a scheme by vested interests to defeat the referendum. Unscrupulous interests had attempted to assist newspapers to seize the opportunity in Mr. Curtin’s absence to split the Labour Government. When the Press talked about freedom of speech it did not mean freedom of speech for the individual: it meant freedom of speech for newspaper proprietors. Working Journalists Thanked

Mr. Calwell .said lie hacl no intention of retiring from the Parliamentary Committee on Censorship, lie has sent a telegram to the Australian Journalists' Association. thanking members “for their restraint and unbiased treatment of news in the censorship dispute,” and adding that his own troubles with newspapers were always on the proprietorial and editorial level .and not with the working journalists, many of whom were his personal friends.

The president of the New South Walebranch of the Australian Journalists' Association (Mr. G. F. Godfrey), who war. appointed by the State Labour Council to speak at a public meeting supporting Mr. Calwell, has declined to do so.

The secretary of the Journalists’ Association (Mr. J. C. James) has announced that the State Committee of ihe association, including Mr. Godfrey and the two other association delegates to the Labom Council were strongly opposed to Mr. Calwell’.s action in suppressing the newspapers. The chief executive of the Sydney “Sun" (Mr. Eric Kennedy) has revealed the contents of a letter written to him by Mr. Calwell in answer to an earlier specific complaint of censorship. The complaint referred to criticism of Mr Calwell at Townsville. This criticism was censored. Beyond Fair Limits Mr. Calwell’s letter said: “Reference to myself went far beyond the limits of legitimate criticism, and, looking at the matter quite impersonally, 1 must agree that the censor was fully justified.” The matter of the legality of the present censorship regulations, and oi the recent actions by tlie censorship authorities, still remains sub jtuliee pending a full High Court hearing early in May, hut both the “Daily Telegraph” and the “Morning Herald" today make editorial references to the limited aspects of ike dispute. The “Daily Telegraph" asks for strong action by Mr. Forde, as aeting-I'rime Minister, to endorse the Opposition's demand for Mr. Calwell’s removal from the Parliamentary committee to inquire into censorship, adding: "If the Federal Government is going to get out of the awful mess it is in on the censorship issue, it will have to stick to the principles." “Dishonest and Contemptible”

The Sydney ‘•Morning Herald” editorially says: ‘The attempt of some of Mr. Colwell's partisans to represent the newspapers’ resistance to this type of censorship as an effort to discredit the Labour Government and defeat the Wider Powers referendum, is utterly dishonest and contemptible. The ‘Morning Herald’ has given general support to the Government, and. with most of the other journals concerned, has approved of an extension of Federal powers. The question of Press freedom does not belong in the faintest degree to the party arena.”