FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20782, 17 July 1937, Page 18 (Supplement)

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

NATIONAL PARTY’S STATEMENT REPLY TO THE ACTING-PRIME MINISTER “When all the facts are examined, the assurance given by the Hon. P. Fraser, Acting-Prime Minister, that the Government has never contemplated a press censorship, will be considered far from sufficient by liberty-loving New Zealanders,” says a statement issued by the Dominion head office of the National Party. The statement speaks of attacks on the press made by the Prime Minister before his departure, and to those of some of his colleagues, as well as the recent address by the Director of Commercial Broadcasting. “Following the Prime Minister’s attack,” it continues, “the official organ of the Labour Party published an article in which it was asked ‘Why not a judicial board to control the press?’

“With all due deference to Mr Fraser these statements do not support his contention that the Government never contemplated a press censorship. They show clearly either that Mr Savage and other responsible Ministers expected the public to take their remarks with the proverbial grain of salt( surely a strange Ministerial attitude) or that some form of press censorship was being considered, and was abandoned because of public indignation at the threatened curtailment of individual liberty and also because the carefully prepared plan of campaign to discredit the press in favour of Socialist Government controlled radio failed. “Mr Fraser’s assurance can be accepted, but it does not go nearly far enough, and the facts which have come to light show that the danger to the freedom of the press in New Zealand, a dearly bought right, prized by every true Britisher, is very real.

“Very Significant Statement” I "Mr Fraser’s assurance means nothing more than that there will be no restriction of press freedom by legislation. But there are other ways of i attaining the desired objective, and that at least one of them is under consideration Is disclosed in a privately circulated publication which is the official journal of a trades union organisation of which Mr C. H. Chapman. Labour member of Parliament for Wellington North, is the president. In an article published over the joint signatures of Mr Chapman and the union secretary we find this very sigI nificant statement:— “ ‘The time may not be far distant when the printing trade unions may be put on the spot by the Labour movement, and asked: 1 "How long are you going to hold your hands and take all that may be coming to you and at the same time technically assist and tolerate the reactionary newspapers doing everything possible to undermine our Labour Government with lying pernicious and subtle propaganda?” I “ ‘We may be asked to give them I the punch on the nose hinted at II j by the Prime Minister recently. J i If we took action against the

Newspaper Proprietors’ Association we could be charged with interfering with the liberty of the press. On demand or request from the Labour movement for action the printing trade workers will quickly be asked to commit themselves. If they refuse or fail to respond, they will be looking for some other Federation officials.’ “Fantastic Spectacle’’ The statement continues: "So we have the fantastic spectacle of the Acting-Prime Minister endeavouring to calm public fear, and indignation by indicating that all Is well and that liberty of expression is not threatened, while one of his senior parliamentary colleagues in the well disciplined Labour party is privately promulgating a subtle method of destroying freedom in another way. It means that the printing .workers are going to be told not to print anything the Government does not want printed. Thus Mr Fraser’s Government would attain the result it desires without bringing in legislation which would lay it open to public hostility. “On occasions the daily press has warned the public of the Socialistic and liberty-destroying effect of Labour’s legislation. That is its only crime. The right of criticism is the greatest safeguard of democracy and the Government’s desire to destroy criticism shows that its alleged admiration of democracy is nothing but hypocrisy. But New Zealanders are becoming aware of the near approach of a Socialistic dictatorship, and Mr Fraser and his Government have much to explain.”