BROADCASTING BILL

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21806, 11 June 1936, Page 14

BROADCASTING BILL

Committee Stages Of Debate SLOW PROGRESS MADE OPPOSITION’S STURDY RESISTANCE IFrom Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, June 10. An all-day discussion failed to dispose of the last item on the order paper for the House of Representatives—the Broadcasting Bill. The House met to-day at 10.30, and throughout the morning and afternoon members on both sides debated the vital principles involved in the provisions of the bill, which in effect, abolishes the Broadcasting Board, secures full Ministerial control of the service, provides for subsidies for B stations, and empowers the Government to organise commercial stations with rights to advertise. The discussion to-day generally covered the points referred to at length earlier in the debate.

The House was still dealing with the bill in the committee stages on the resumption this evening. After an hour's discussion so little proSess had been made that the Prime mister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) moved the closure to hasten the pace. Even then the Opposition maintained a solid front against the major provisions of the bill, and late in the evening it appeared that the sitting might last until well on in the morning. Earlier in the day, there had been so little interest in the debate that Mr Speaker had had to ring the bells for a quorum. There was a long discussion on the principles of the bill during the resumed debate on the second reading this morning. Mr W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford), the first sneaker, alleged that the Government intended to use the broadcasting service as an instrument of Government propaganda. It had been said that the Opposition would get a fair run; but it was easy to imagine what would happen when feelings ran high. “We know the attitude of the Government towards criticism. Because I ventured to go round the country speaking do farmers’ organisations and criticising the poliev of the Government, which runs contrary to the interests of the farmer, the Government made a noise which might have put me off the platforms of the country.”

Reference had been made to an attempt by a fanning journal to obtain a broadcasting license, Mr Poison said. It was only proposed to broadcast lectures by experts and news and information on fanning topics. The Labour party apparently saw a danger in that, but saw no danger in putting its own propaganda over from the national stations. There would be control of broadcasting by the party for the parity in the interests of the party. “There are three ways by which this infant could be controlled ” said Mr W. J. Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomoß It could be taken over entirely bjr the State; it could be placed wholly in the hands of private commercial interests; or it could be run as a public utility service. The latter method had much to recommend it; but the best system of all seemed to be that adopted in England. The British Breadcasting Corporation was a judicious combination of private enterprise and Government control. Ministerial Control Supported Mr H. Atmore (Ind., Nelson) voiced support for the principle of Ministerial control Such a step meant control by a representative of the people, of a people's service. Dr. D. G. McMillan (Govt., Dunedin West) also commended the provision in the bill for Ministerial control of the broadcasting service- Direct Ministerial responsibility, he said, enabled the doings of the department to be criticised and defended in the House. The Minister was responsible to Parliament, and through Parliament to the people. He was wholeheartedly in favour of that system, because he believed that the salvation of the world lay in the perpetuation ofethe democratic principle. "Opposition to radio advertising has been carefully fostered by the press, which views with alarm the prospect of the development of a new consumer of advertising revenue,” said Dr. McMillan. "Anyone who feels inclined towards the private control of broadcasting should consider the bad results ihat have attended the private control cf that other great media of public

education, or, I should say, of public deception—the press. The suppression and distortion of news, the vigorous, vindictive- partisanship, which has masqueraded under assumed disinterestedness, of the editorials of come of our papers should be an object-les-son to those who deprecate public control of broadcasting.” Labour members,lncluding the Post-roaster-General and the Prime Minister, took exception to a statement by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara) that a commitment had been entered into between the Labour party and the B stations. Mr Coates insisted that there had been such an understanding, and that it was quite obvious that the Government had been caught by an ill-con-sidered promise. Political Control Defended The contention that in the final analysis all control was political, was made by Mr P. W. Schramm (Govt., Auckland East). “What is wrong with political control, anyway?” asked Mr Schramm, when referring to Opposition criticism of the provision in the bill that control of the broadcasting service should be returned to the Minister. “Who makes the big appointments to the banks and other institutions, but the Government of the country? Under political control, the broadcasting service will be placed under a responsible Minister.” The leader of the Opposition (the Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes) said that the Government was like a man with a new broom, and it should be cautious lest it swept some useful furniture. The Prime Minister and his colleagues could not complain about the treatment they had received from the press. Anything the Prime Minister said was published in full, while the remarks of Opposition members were so compressed that they appeared in tabloid form. If after all that the Prime Minister still maintained that he was not getting a fair deal, one wondered what sort of chance bis opponents would be given to put their case over the air. Mr S. G. Smith (Nat., New Plymouth) said that once hostility to the Government began to grow it would use the air to bolster up its case, and the Opposition would be denied a fair chance to reply. The public interest and public service should be the first consideration in broadcasting. Minister’s Reply to Criticism Opposition criticism of the bill was answered by the Postmaster-General (the Hon. F. Jones) in his reply to the second-reading debate. Mr Jones said Opposition members had spoken loudly in praise of the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and had endeavoured to show that the Broadcasting Board had worked along the same lines in New Zealand. There had never been the same right to broadcast on controversial subjects, and in that the board appeared to have shirked its responsibilities. The criticism of Government ownership of commercial stations was unjustified. Experience had shown. that both the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Federal Government were powerless to deal with commercial stations in Australia, and surely that was an argument in favour of Government control. Before the election, Mr Jones continued, the B stations had taken the view that the Broadcasting Board had bought out several stations at a cost of. more than £SOOO, and others thought that they were likely to be put off the air. “There has been criticism of radio advertising,” Mr Jones said. “We as a Government spend more than £20,000 a year in advertising. Why should we not spend some of that money on advertising through our own radio stations? The only objection is that it will reduce the profits of advertising firms and newspapers.” Second Reading Passed . A division on the second reading was called for by the Opposition, the voting" being 49 to 19 in favour of the motion. Details of the division are:— For the Bill (49) Anderton McDougall Atmore , McMillan Barclay Mason Barnes Meachen Barrel! Moncur Burnett, C. H. Munro Campbell Nash Carr Neilson Chapman Nordmeyer Christie O'Brien Coleman Parry Cotterill Petrie Cullen Ratana Denham Richards Fraser Roberts Herring Robertson Hodgens Savage Howard Schramm Hunter Semple Jones Sextcn Jordan Sullivan Langstono . Thorn Lee Webb Lowry Wilson Lyon ! Against the Bill (19) Bodkin Holland Broadfoot Holyoake Burnett, T. D. Kyle Coates Poison Cobbe Ransom Dickie Roy Endean smith Forbes Wilkinson Hamilton Wright Hargest Pairs (.For the bill) Coulter McCombs (Against the Bill) Ngata Henare Purchase of B Stations An explanation of the late Govei nment’s policy in buying out a number of B stations was given by the Mon. A. Hamilton (Nat., Wallace), during the committee stages. “Most of the stations we bought out were financially embarrassed,” said Mr Hamilton. "They were poor, insignificant stations, and it was better, that they should cease to operate.” Mr Hamilton said that there were four or five B stations in Dunedin, and he asked whether it was the intention of the Postmaster-General to subsidise all of them. Mr Jones: We may buy one of them cut. Mr Hamilton: The Minister is in an embarrassing position as a result of the promises he made. Mr Jones; I made them no promise. Mr Hamilton: You promised to help them. Mr Jones: To keep them on the air. “There is terrific power and terrific danger in broadcasting, which should be divorced frem political control,” said Mr K. J. Holyoake (Nat., Motueka). He asked whether B stations were to be subsidised on a population basis, and whether a survey would be made. Mr Jones: A survey will be made. After the short title had been under discussion for about an hour and threequarters, the Prime Minister moved the closure, which was Agreed to by 43 votes to 15. The short title was retained by 43 votes to 16, Representations from Listeners A request that the Minister should hear representations from listeners when considering appointments to the Broadcasting Advisory Council, was made by Mr Hamilton, when the clause providing for setting up the council was under consideration. “It is not the intention of the Government to appoint direct listeners’ representatives.” replied the Minister. “Members of Parliament will be able to represent the listeners very well. The advisory council is to assist in arranging programmes, and possibly in other ■ matters: but its principal duty will be to consider programmes.” Mr Jones expressed the opinion that it would be possible to find a man in New Zealand capable of taking over the duties of Director of Broadcasting, i The Rt, Hon. J. G. Coates (Nat., Kaipara) sought to amend the clause abol- ! ishing the Broadcasting Board, by j moving that the board be replaced by i a broadcasting corporation consisting of

the Minister, three representatives elected by the listeners, and two members appointed by the Government. The Minister for Railways (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) said that when Mr Coates was in office ho had had the opportunity to give listeners the representation he now asked for. Requests made by the listeners were simply scoffed at by the Government of which he was a member, and now he appealed for representation for listeners, simply for political reasons. “For unadulterated, unmitigated humbug and hypocrisy, the amendment moved by the member for Kaipara beats anything I have heard in this House,” said Mr Sullivan. “The members appointed to the Advisory Council will not be political derelicts who have served the Reform party. Neither will they be people appointed because of their political views. They will be people with experience and knowledge and capacity to serve the listeners, and not like the members of the board, who were appointed because they were friends of the party in power.” Mr Coates’s amendment was rejected by 43 votes to 18. An amendment moved by Mr Poison (Nat., Stratford) to make the Minister carry on the broadcasting service in conjunction with the Advisory Council was defeated by 43 votes to 17. Mr Broadfoot (Nat., Waitomo) then moved an amendment to delete the provision that the Director of Broadcasting should hold office during the pleasure of the Government. He said that such a provision would place the director in an invidious position. The amendment was lost on the voices, and a subsequent division resulted in the clause providing for the appointment of a director being retained by 43 votes to 18. An amendment by Mr Coates that the Advisory Council should consist of the Minister and not more than five members, three to fee elected by the listeners and two to be appointed by the Qovernor-General-in-Council, was lost by 48 votes to 17. By midnight, clause 12 had been reached, and the House was then little more than halfway through the bill. (Left sitting.)