The Press Monday, November 2, 1931. The Broadcasting Bill.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20383, 2 November 1931, Page 8

The Press Monday, November 2, 1931. The Broadcasting Bill.

It is interesting news that the Commonwealth Government has decided to adopt something like the British system of radio broadcasting control; and it is to be hoped that the rather hesitating attitude of the New Zealand Government will be stiffened by it, Though the House has now bo little time that the Government may be tempted to drop all but essential business, the Broadcasting Bill should be easy to despatch, provided that the Government really knows its own mind; and there is no reason why it should not. The Bill has already been thoroughly well exhibited, both to the House and to the public, without drawing any weighty objection, while it has been approved in principle by those who have most right to be considered. It is opposed by a minority mainly on the ground that things are very well as they .are and need not be disturbed. In favour of it are the facts that a majority are dissatisfied and see no prospect of speedy or great improvement under the present system, and that the proposed reform takes the direction which experience strongly recoqimends. There is the further fact of course that del ay now may mean indefinite delay. If the Government does not act at op.ee, it will be in a very weak position, with the expiry of the present contract only a few Aveeks away; but it will git into this position only if it is weak enough to be badgered into dropping the Bill At the same time it must be remembered that the Bill is not an end but a means. Much more depends on the constitution of the Board fVinri Qn, the adoption of Board control; aud the Government will have to geek and the best advice available to it before making appointments. The initial difficulty is that of finding men and women -willing to do a great deal of hard thinking, experimenting, and planning lor very small pay, and fit to do it. It is a difficulty that may la© overcome by personal interest and readiness to sacrifice time and money to it; but it will not be overcome, it will npt be faced at all, if the Govern' ment appoints a group of "safe" retired officials and others who have gone leisure to fllJ. The Board will not be able to copy the methods of the British Broadcasting Corporation. It will have to study them, and tp adapt them intelligently. It will have to study other methods; for example, those of the decentralised German system, which offers useful suggestions to a country with four separate stations, It will have not only to improve and to adapt but to innovate, if it is to justify itself wholly. But the first step is the Government's, and the second step: it must put the Bill through, and it must make sure of appointing the best possible Board and giving it the largest possible freedom inside the necessary financial bounds. If this is not done to-day or this week it may not bo done for a distressingly long time. Poached Cricketers. According to Mr Gilligan, everybody in England is " delighted that Brad- " man is remaining in Australia and " sorry that Merritt is being poached." We do not yet know definitely that Merritt is being poached, or can be, but they have apparently accepted the report as a fact in and the ehance of its being exploded in Chi"ist~ church by the method adopted in Sydney is not very big. The present situation of course is that the poaching cannot be permanent for two years without the co-operation of the New Zealand Crickefc Council; and i£ it were quite certain that Merritt would return to New Zealand after a season or two, or come and go as a professional, there would be many reasons for hoping that things will turn out as gossip has already arranged them. It is certainly not to blame Merritt himself for going to England, whether the transfer is temporary or permanent. We do not blame people in other walks of life for accepting : pleasanter or more profitable occupations, and we cannot blame cricketers. We cannot indeed blame anybody in : these situations unless the transfer has ; been meanly achieved, and there is not | much material in the history of Eng- ' lish cricket to support a charge of ' poaching in the bad sense. The posi- ' tion rather is that England has kept ' an open door for everyone who plays cricket under the Union Jack. She has played men of all colours and of all social grades if they have been born or bred in some corner of the Empire; and although few will suppose that Lancashire made no approach to Bractman, or that Merritt was not encouraged to talk business with the Lancashire League, the fact remains that England has never played a " bought" man in a Test. She has' played men who have transferred as amateurs, but in spite of many temptations she has not in sixty years poached a man to help her to win a Test, or used a man for that purpose who has been secured more innocently. In' the classical case of McDonald, the Australian bowler, although he had qualified both by residence and by performances, no one ever suggested that he should play for England. Lancashire has certainly earned a reputation as an eager buyer, but the history of "Cricket prefer- " ments" which we reprint to-day from the ObsetveT shows that England has very little to be ashamed of when her record is examined as a whole.