National Party Policy On Television Control

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28958, 28 July 1959, Page 14

National Party Policy On Television Control

(A etc Zealand Press Association) DUNEDIN, July 27. The next National Government should allow private enterprise to introduce television into New Zealand either regionally or nationally, subject to programme control by an independent corporation, the National Party’s Dominion conference decided today. Mr E. N. Pryor (Hastings), moving the remit, said that television was already in New Zealand, but in an uncontrolled way. Hundreds of television sets had been sold already, and there was a sort of hotchpotch arrangement going on in Auckland, where TV was well in vogue.

“We of the National Party delay too long in making up our minds on such matters,” he said. It had been said when radio was introduced that the press would be hurt, but that did not prove to be the case, he said. He did not think the introduction of television would interfere with the press at all. Mr W. D. G. Bransgrove (Wellington Central) said he was only worried about the time when television should be introduced. He felt that the party and its leader should, however, give a forthright statement that when television was introduced by a National Government it would be done so by private enterprise, and not a politically-controlled body like the New Zealand Broadcasting Service. Television had been introduced into 57 countries already, including mountainous Switzerland and Sweden, he said. A number. of sections of private enterprise | were wanting to control television services in New Zealand. He thought there was no better ! qualified body, with the news j facilities at its disposal, than the| newspaper proprietors. Mr B. L. Lyons (Wellington) I said that the party had lost a great opportunity in not divcrc-j ing the New Zealand Broadcast-

ing Service from State control. The main criticisms of TV were directed against the types of programmes of advertising in some services, he said. Suitable control of this would certainly be required. The remit was carried with no opposition. Farm Settlement The conference decided that the policy committee should prepare a scheme for settling suitable young qualified civilians on farms, the scheme to be similar to that under the Rehabilitation Act, with special emphasis on low initial deposits. Mr I. D. Bodie (Marsden), j moving the remi-, said that the move would not only settle young I men but increase the country's! revenue. Mr W. M. Harvie (Otago Central) said that since the war ended 15 years ago, few civilians had got on to the land. Some men served a long apprenticeship on the land, bat were now too old to want their own farms. Former servicemen could pay £3OO deposit to obtain a freehold farm, but civilians had to find £9900. Leasehold deposits were £lOOO and £3OOO. The only opposition speaker was Mr E. M. Jmmerman (Rodey), who said that similarly favourable terms should be made to persons wishing to start in businesses, as well as to those wanting farms.

Transport Laws A thorough investigation of current transport legislation to promote the greatest efficiency in road and rail transport was recommended by delegates. This was proposed as an amendment to a remit recommending that farmers and others should be permitted to carry their own goods in their own vehicles for any distance. At present owners of heavy vehicles may not transport their goods or stock more than 30 miles parallel to a railway. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition (Mr J. R. Marshall) said he gave the views of the former Minister of Transport (Mr Goosman). The protection of the railways was necessary, he said. "The railways have -not paid their way for some years,” he said. “We want a reduction in taxes, death duties, and so on. You can’t have it both ways.”

Delegates recommended that the Government be urged to increase substantially the penalty for the conversion or theft of motor vehicles. lipper House The conference instructed a special committee to make its final report on the suggested constitution of an upper house three months before the 1960 conference. The previous National Government abolished the Legislative Council in 1951. An interim report on the constitution of the proposed uppei house was presented by the chairman of the upper house committee (Mr Marshall). He said the committee felt the functions of the upper house should include the following:— (1) The power to reject constitutional amendments proposed by the Lower House, constitutional laws to be defined possibly in a written constitution. (2) The power to amend or delay legislation proposed by the Lower House, the period of delay to be sufficient to give public opinion an opportunity for expression. (3) Money bills as defined to be initiated in the Lower House. <4> The upper house to have the right to initiate legislation except for money bills. •5) The upper house to undertake some of the work of select committee, e.g., petitions, and to undertake public inquiries and investigations. “As to the form of the uppei house, the committee is considering a number of proposals,’' Mr Marshall said. “As a matter of principle it favours the elective form to the nominative form, but it has not rejected the latter entirely at this stage. It is considering proposals, both for direct election for the people and for indirect election by a form of electoral college. Other proposals have been submitted to the committee for the alternative of a statutory revisory council.

“It is generally agreed that the upper house should be smaller in size and elected or appointed for a longer term than the Lower House.

"The committee is also examining the forms of upper houses

- 1 in other countries, particularly in -I other parts of the Common- .! wealth.’’ World Bank i No definite decision about ■ whether New Zealand should I: join the International Monetary .'Fund or the World Bank was . \ made by the conference, but delegates approved of a motion em- .: phasising to the policy commit■l tee the benefits of membership. Appeals Against Rulings .1 The right of appeal against rul- ; ings of Ministers of the Crown i |and departmental officers was | unanimously favoured by delej gates. It was agreed that legislation land regulations which gave Ministers and departmental officers power to make administrative! decisions from which there is no I i appeal to the Courts should be j ! reviewed, the purpose being to j i give individuals the right to challenge such rulings. I A committee will study the! I advisability of establishing a tri-1 | buna] similar to that set up re-j cently in the United Kingdom to! ! oversee the operation of State de- 1 ■ partments and tribunals, with the! I principal object of safeguarding The rights of individuals in ac-1 cordance with established British ! , traditions.