Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

REMOVAL URGED

MEMBER'S CRITICISM CALL FOR FREEDOM EXAMPLE OF AUSTRALIA (S R.) WELLINGTON, Friday "The war has reached a stage where victory is in sight and it is high time that the tyranny, of the press censorship in this country was removed," said Mr F. W. Doidge (Opposition—Tauranga), opening the debate on the Imprest Supply Bill in the House of Representatives today. Although there was 110 longer any danger to the Dominion, it was still in the grip of a censorship. Every editor's table, said Mr Doidge. was piled with an array of "thou shall nots," instructions from the censor. While the war was close those relating to security were justified, but those ol a political nature never were. National security would not be affected one iota by the abolition of the censorship.

"Press In Straitjacket" The Labour Party was always prattling about democracy, he added, yet the Government had imposed*a tighter censorship than in any other Englishspeaking count ry. No English newspaper would have stood lor such a censorship as existed in New Zealand. Ihe press of the Dominion was not even free to report Parliament without interference. Mr A. S. Richards (Government — Roskill): Oh, rubbish. Don't talk nonsense.

The Government would like the newspapers to lie yes-men and the people of New Zealand to live in ;i mental concentration camp, Mr Doidge continued. The press of New Zealand had lived in a straitjacket for five years. It had not been allowed, through the censor's suppression of free comment, to publish the strikers' viewpoint 111 certain industrial troubles. The unions had not been permitted to state their case, had been denied fair play and the public had been prevented from forming an opinion on Ihe issues in dispute.

Events in England It was only by the power of public opinion that any case could be properly judged, Mr Doidge added. In Britain a succession of Ministers of Information had lost their political heads for going 100 far in interfering with free criticism. Mr K. J. Holyoake (Opposition— Pahiat.ua): Whose head are you demanding here Mr Doidgo: We have n censor here, but it is the power behind the censor we are after.

The Government had become an autocracy, seeking to'protect its incompetence and incapacity bv the repression of free comment. Mr Doidge said. It even invaded the sanctity of the Supreme Court, where the censor had the impudence to interfere in the Ostler case some years ago. The censorship had interfered with the People's Voice and Democracy because the Government did not like criticism. No one in New Zealand, not even Parliament, could override the censor.

A glaring case of political censorship had been revealed when the censor had banned a political article despatched for publication in the New Statesman and Nation, said Mr Doidge. The article was a criticism of the Government and had no security implications whatever, yet the excuse was that it was accompanied by "an immoral article which besmirched New Zealand womanhood." Therefore the two were banned. Charge by Mr Fraser

The Prime Minister. Mr Fraser: The honourable gentleman is making himself a defender of literary filth. The New Statesman, said Mr Doidge. published the kind of article which the censor had stopped. It was true that it contained crudities, but it had literary merit. It was about an American and a New Zealand girl, The Prime Minister: You are defending immorality. Mr Doidge: The Prime Minister is setting himself up as a censor of morals. Morality is for the editor to decide, not the Prime Minister.

Mr boidge said that Australia had relaxed its censorship and all political censorship had been eliminated. It. was time New Zealand fell into line. The Government's control of broadcasting was designed to prevent freedom of opinion. When was anything heard over the radio but the Government's point of view? "When the National Party came io oflice it would restore competition on the air and give freedom to the expression of all shades of opinion. "Intolerable Postal Censorship"

Speaking in the debate after the Prime -Minister had replied to .Mr Doidge, Mr P. M. Algie (Opposition— Remuora) said there was nothing in Mr Doidgc's speech to prompt the tirade of abuse to which he had been subjected by the Prime Minister. In this country there was an intolerable postal censorship which should be relaxed, he continued. If the Government wished to prevent the free expression of public opinion thero was no bettor way to do it than to let the public fee] that the sanctity of their private correspondence was open to review by Government ofiicials, and it was known that they were not immune from the temptation to pass on information they obtained in this way. Mr Algie produced the envelope of a letter from one suburb oi Auckland to another which had been opened by the censor. He also exhibited a number of envelopes addressed to a family in his electorate, all of which had been examined by the censor. He said that particular family held certain opinions with which he entirely disagreed, but they were citizens of this country and, although they held minority views, had minority rights. Since September of last year every letter, parcel, telegram and newspaper going to the family's house had been subject to delays of censorship. Contention by Minister

Mr I!. M. Mncfarlane (Government — Christrliurdi South) said that fjuito a number of people in tho country wero suspect and it was necessary to keep an eye on their correspondence. _ Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition—Central Otago) said that even the law journals were censored. The Primo Minister had evaded the whole issue by confining his remarks to a vilification i>j the writer of one article. Mr A. S. Richards (Grtvernment — lionkill) said that Government members did not net anything like a fair share Hi" speeches reported on from the House. The call for freedom of the press was for freedom for the directors, owners and shareholders in newspapers, said tho Minister of Supply, Mr Sullivan. There "was no freedom for tho writers for the press.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19440812.2.41.4

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 24970, 12 August 1944, Page 8

Word Count
1,013

REMOVAL URGED New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 24970, 12 August 1944, Page 8

REMOVAL URGED New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 24970, 12 August 1944, Page 8