The Timaru Herald TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1943. MR HOLLAND’S OPENED LETTER

Timaru Herald, Volume CLIII, Issue 22489, 26 January 1943, Page 2

The Timaru Herald TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1943. MR HOLLAND’S OPENED LETTER

"[HE prompt action of the Leader of the Opposition in drawing • lie Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that a letter sent by him to his private secretary in Wellington had been opened and examined by an official of the Censorship Department has opened up an interesting public question. The Prime Minister's investigation of Mr Holland’s complaint reveals that the letter was opened by a censorship official, and in an earlier statement Mr Fraser mentioned that his own correspondence had been opened “on several occasions, obviously by mistake.'’ People are not generally aware that a censorship of internal mails exists; that it does exist has been disclosed before, but it would be timely if the Controller of Censorship, or the Primo Minister, gave a statement on the principles and methods adopted tor this censorship of internal mails. It is only fair to the public that such a statement should be made. War brings certain curtailment of ordinary liberties, but the normal privacy of the mails is one of the last sanctities that should be attacked by officialdom even in wartime. If it is necessary for national security that this should be done, then the Government should tell the public what kind of communication is forbidden between the citizens of a democracy.

In his letter to Mr Holland the Prime Minister said: “Letters to or from Members of Parliament are not subject to censorship.” There is really-no reason why Members of Parliament should be a privileged class. It cannot be supposed that as a whole Members of Parliament are more reputable or discreet than clergymen, policemen, Justices of the Peace, doctors, farmers, Trade Union secretaries or any other groups in the community.

If the purpose of the internal mail censorship were clearly stated to the public it would facilitate the discussion of an important question. If the censorship is imposed to discourage the dissemination of information which might be of value to enemy agents in our midst, then it is possible that Members of Parliament, their minds burdened by the national secrets communicated to them behind the closed doors of the House of Representatives, would be more likely to err than the ordinary uninformed citizen. If, however, the purpose of the censorship is to enable the Censorship Department to “gi/t a line” on suspected persons, then many dangerous possibilities exffit. Internal mail censorship must be much more prevalent than has hitherto been supposed if even the Prime Minister has had his own mail opened “on several occasions.” Mr Holland also mentioned that the time he complained was not his first experience of official interference with his mail. If censorship officials are>o busy that they can get to work on the Prime Minister’s mail without realising that he, of all citizens, should be the most trusted, it is reasonable to suppose that the ordinary citizen is getting a great deal more attention than he had believed.

Since internal mail is censored it i« not fantastic to suppose that other forms of internal communication between citizens are similarly subject 10 some form of official scrutiny. It would, for example, be a logical development of this system to have an official plug-in on telephone calls. 11 is not suggested that this is done, or has ever been done, but if internal censorship of private correspondence operates, there is no reason why official precautions should not be taken this distasteful step further. Perhaps the Prime Minister or the Controller of Censorship might disclose where censorship begins and where it ends.

The public, now that they have been made more aware of the prelailing practice by Mr Holland’s complaint, are entitled to ask the Government for the fullest explanation of what is being done. If an explanation is withheld then the people must assume that the Govern-ment-has set no limit to its arrogation

of authority where private individuals are concerned. Internal censorship is no doubt in the hands of reputable officials, but one unsuspected black sheep in a white fold could do incalculable damage to the reputation of a citizen unaware that his letters meet eyes other than those for which they were intended. It is improbable, but not impossible, that gross,, even criminal use, could be made of information obtained in this way. The people of a country waging war for the preservation of human freedom are entitled to know just what is expected of them by the Government, lhe fact that censorship in a larger sense has been occasionally misused in this country since the outbreak of war will not make the public mind any easier once it is admitted that complete privacy no longer exists in the mails. The Government will have ilself to blame for public uneasiness unless it explains the purpose for which internal censorship is imposed; the method bv which it is imposed, ami gives a guarantee that alm-e of ibis form of censorship is impossible.