CENSOR S VETO

Evening Star, Issue 24326, 15 October 1942, Page 6

CENSOR S VETO

MR HOLLAND'S COMPLAINT VIGOROUS DEFENCE BY PREMIER (Special.) WELLINGTON, Oct,-15. “ I’m attacking the system that places in the hands of any one -man the right to go over the heads of responsible Ministers and veto their right to tell the public anything they think the public ought to be told,” said the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, in the House of Representatives last night, when he referred to the censorship in New Zealand. A vigorous reply was made by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. Mr Holland said that when he announced his resignation from the War Administration, he had referred to what he then called ‘ another matter.’ And he went on to explain what that was. As Minister of War Expenditure, he had thought there was need for scrutiny of proposed items of war expenditure, and he had suggested a committee for that purpose. He had proposed another committee to look into the matter of the efficiency and economy of war work, and the Army and Treasury had approved of that. He had prepared for publication in the Press a statement explaining this, and a copy went to the censor, who, to Mr Holland’s amazement, prohibited publication of the statement. In doing that, the censor over-ruled the Acting Prime Minister. Mr Holland said that the people of New Zealand had a right to know how their money was being spent on the war. No suggestion had been made that the statement contained information of value to the enemy. “ I want to raise my voice in protest

against the misuse of the censorship to protect the Government,” said Mr Holland. Despite the co-operation of the newspapers, there was an absence of any effective news service in New Zealand, and he commended the recent statement on the censorship made by the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association. The people were kept in ignorance of many things which they were entitled to know, of many recent happenings in the country; and that resulted in the spread of garbled versions and rumours. Mr Holland said that he had urged the setting up of a Ministry of Information, and bad been told that the proposal was under way, but nothing had been done. “ The people mast be told the truth,” he said. “ It’s no good treating them like a lot of children.” Replying, the Prime Minister said that Mr Holland had stated that certain action taken by the censor was to defend the Government. The War Cabinet from the beginning, however, had been responsible for the administration of war finances, and therefore there was no question of defending the ordinary Government. In regard to statements on war policy, the War Cabinet had laid it down that they must be submitted to the censor. In a case like that he would not interfere, and had never interfered. The censor had always given the Prime Minister the opportunity of looking at Minister’s statements, whatever they were. Mr Fraser said that he himself never made a statement on any aspect of the war issue without submitting it to the censor. Other members of the War Cabinet, not all of them on the Government side of the House, had considered that Mr Holland’s statement was unfair, not to the Government, but to the members of the War Cabinet. One condition of comradeship in a common enterprise was loyalty to each other. Mr Holland: And,the Acting Prime Minister approved of it. Mr Fraser: The Minister told me that he did not approve of the statement, and that he actually offered to rearrange part of it so that it could be published. Is that not sop Mr Sullivan : Correct. Another member of the War Cabinet had offered his services, continued Mr Fraser, to trim the statement into a form which left no reflection on Mr Holland-’s colleagues. Why did Mr Holland have a complaint? Did he want to stab the Government that he was co-operating with in the back P That was the only ground of complaint he could possibly have. The censor had done what he usually did. The attention of the Acting Prime Minister, who was the head of the team for the time being, had been called to the statement so that it could be discussed and issued in a form representing the War Cabinet as a whole. Mr Holland was suffering from a misconception of what his duty was—a misconception that was quite inexplicable to himself. Why ? Because he looked upon himself not as a representative of the people of the Dominion in the War Cabinet, but as a representative of certain class interests. (Opposition laughter and Government Hear hears.) At a time when the idea was to get unity of purpose and to act in the interests of the people as a whole, continued Mr the honourable member was, according to an opinion expressed by himself in the War Cabinet, out to look after certain interests he represented. Was there a basis for common action under such circumstances ?