FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 429, 10 May 1937, Page 3

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

DANGER STILL REAL. Statement Issued by National Party. “When all the facts are examined, the assurance given by Hon. P. Fraser, Acting Prime Minister, that the Government has never contemplated a press censorship will bri considered far from sufficient by liberty loving New Zealanders,” says a statement issued by the Dominion head office of the National Party. Continuing, the statement refers to the attacks on the Press made by the Prime Minister prior to his departure, and to those of some of lus colleagues, as well as the attack of Rev. Director of Commercial Broadcasting. “Following the Prime Minister’s Bt_ tack,” proceeds the statement, “the official organ of 'the Labour Party pub. lished an article Ln which it was asked: 'Why not a Judicial Board to coptrol the Press?’ ” “With all due reference to Mr. Fraser these statemen’s do not support his contention that tffe 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 sa.W. (purely a grange Ministerial attitude) or thlat some form of Press censorship was being considered, and was abandoned because of public indignation at the threatened curtailment of individual liberty anfl also because the ea.iie,fully prepared plan of campaign to discredit the press in favour of Socialist Government controlled radio failed “Mr. Fraser’s assurance can be accepted, bitt it dps riot go hearty far enough and the fac’s which have come to' light show that' the danger to the freedom of the Press iri New Zealand, a dearly bought right, prized by every true Britisher, ig very real. Significant Statement. “Mr. Fraser’s asturahce means nothing more than that there will be no restriction of Press freedom by legislation. But there are other ways of attaining the desired objective and that at least one of them is under consideration is <fitclos®d in a .privately-circulated publication which is the official journal of a trades union organisation, of which body Mr. C. H. Chapman, Labour, M.R, for Wellington' North, is the president. In an article published over the joint signatures of Mr. Chapman land the union, secretary concerned, we find this very significant 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: ‘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 everyhing possible to undermine our Labour Government with lying pernicious and subtle propaganda?’ “We may be 'asked to give them the punch op the nose hintedi at by the Prime Minister recently. If we took action against the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association we could be charged with interfering with the lib erty 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 fhil to respond, 'they will fee looking for some other Federation officials.

So we have the fantastic spectacle of '(he 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 me bod Of destroying freedom in ano ther way. it metans that the printing workers are going to be told not 'O print anything the Government H’Oes not want printed. Thus Mr Fraser’s Government would attain the result it desires without bringing m legislation which would lav it Open to public hostility.

On occasions the daily Presi haa warned the public of the Socialistic and liberty-destroying eflect of bab our’s legislation. That is its onlv ' crime. The right of criticism is the greatest safe-guard of democracy and the Government’s desire to destroy criticism shows that its alleged admiration of democracy is nothing but hyprocrisy. But New Zalanders are becoming aware of the near ap proach of a Socialistic dictatorship' and Mr. Prater and his Government nav« much to expliain.