AN INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21805, 10 June 1936, Page 12

AN INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE

MINISTER’S SUGGESTION IN HOUSE

NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO ADVERTISING

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.]

WELLINGTON. June 9,

The intention of the Government to institute, if necessary, an independent news service over the air was indicated by the Postmaster-General (the Hon. F. Jones), when moving the second reading of the Broadcasting Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. These remarks were made by the Minister during a general review of the broadcasting of advertising matter. “We have heard a great deal, and we will no doubt hear a great deal more, about the interests of vhe newspapers,’’ said Mr Jones. “They can look after themselves, and it may interest members to know that some of them are anxious to secure licenses for commercial stations. Included in these are New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., Christchurch, National Magazines, Ltd., the “Bay of Plenty Press,” and—this should interest the member for Stratford—“ Point Blank.” They want commercial stations so that they may advertise ever the air. A station in Auckland is already owned and controlled by a newspaper, and it wants the right to advertise. We have had 61 applications altogether for B stations from different firms and organisations in New Zealand.” Federal Minister Quoted

The Minister quoted remarks made by Mr R. A. Parkhill, Minister for Defence and formerly PostmasterGeneral in the Commonwealth Government. about a newspaper monopoly oi commercial broadcasting stations in Australia. He had spoken of the danger of allowing newspapers to gain control of those stations, and had said that one newspaper proprietary alone controlled 11 stations.

“We can readily imagine the monopoly of the air the newspapers would get if we granted them the right to establish commercial stations in New Zealand,” said the Minister. “We do not want a state of affairs to arise in New Zealand similar to that in Australia. Enormous profits are made by these commercial stations in Australia, and all their revenue comes from advertising.

“The members of the Opposition will no doubt say that the interests of listeners must' be protected,” the Minister said: “but I would point to screen advertising, which does not in any way interfere with the enjoyment of those who visit theatres. I do not think listeners will object to radio advertising. In America, Europe, and Australia there is a real demand for radio advertising. The only question we have to decide is whether the broadcasting of advertisements is to be carried out by individuals or by the Government. We think the Government should manage it. If advertising is to be allowed over the air, it is cur duty to own and control the stations, and to decide what advertisements should go over the air.” Mr Jones referred to the profits made by privately-owned commercial stations in Australia. One had made a profit of £58,000, another of £3OOO, and another had paid a dividend last year of 300 per cent. If profits were going to be made in that way in New Zealand, there was no reason why the Government should not go into the business. “We do not want newspapers to tell us what to do,” added Mr Jones, “and if we think an independent news service should be broadcast, we will take steps to do it, and will provide a daily news session for the people of New Zealand.”

“JAMMING” OF RADIO

STATION

REFERENCE TO ELECTION INCIDENT

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, June 9.

Reference to the “jamming” of the Friendly Road radio station at Auckland during the general election campaign was made by the former Post-master-General, the Hon. A. Hamilton (Nat., Wallace), when speaking in the second-reading debate on the Broadcasting Bill in the House of Representatives to-night. Mr Hamilton explained that his instructions were that if the station broke the regulations it was to be put olf' the air by cancellation of its license; but this course had not been followed by an inspector, who had adopted his own methods of dealing with the situation. The station started to break the regulations, and although it was warned it took no heed. On an occasion previous to the present one, it was closed down for quite a few days.

“I anticipated that there might be trouble during the election campaign,” said Mr Hamilton, “and gave instructions that if the station broadcast matter of a political nature it was to be stepped. My instructions were that if the station broke the regulations badly, it was to be told that its license was cancelled and it was off the air.”

The Hon. R. Semple; Why did you not do it above board?

Mr Hamilton: An inspecting officer was asked to take notes if there were any bad breaches of the regulations, and to go round the next morning and kilorm the station that it was off the air. This officer adopted his own methods of dealing with the situation, and “jammed” the station. Mr Hamilton said he had given no instructions about “ja/mming.” Apparently when the station offended the inspector had decided on his own line of action.

“I have to carry the main responsibility, because the officer no doubt thought he was acting wisely,” said Mr Hamilton.

Mr Semple; Will you justify the method adopted? Mr Hamilton; I am simply telling my story, and what my instructions were. I think the incident had some effect on the elections. The attitude adopted by the station was a very unjust reward for the concessions it* had received from the previous Government.