N.Z.B.C. programmes

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32536, 20 February 1971, Page 16

N.Z.B.C. programmes

Sir,—The N.Z.B.C. evidently intends the YA allnight programme, including “news and weather forecast,” to be for “pop” listeners exclusively. First, there was the elimination of “Classical Corner,” leaving a cultural desert Next (since many months ago), listeners to the midnight news have had to endure a succession of illiterate pop announcers, croaking in lieu of speech, and enunciation so slovenly that passages have been unintelligible. Now, on the morning of February 14, the announcer fails to broadcast the scheduled weather forecast after the midnight news, stating that “the reason we can’t nave it now is that we have a fairly long recording of . . .” (a pop performer). Later, he announces that “at 3 we ought to have another weather forecast—no promises!” Why not, since it was scheduled? It is a slovenly and deplorable state of affairs when announcers are permitted to postpone scheduled announcements in favour of “pop.”—Yours, etC ” PAUL MALING. February 16, 1971. [Mr L. Boyes, public relations officer of the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation, replies: ‘There has never been a regular classical comer, as such, in the allnight programme but, from time to time, records which could be described as ‘class! cal’ have been played. The announcer rostered on the morning of February 14 regrettably overlooked the forecast at 12.03, but after a long-playing record it was given at 12.28 a.m. His con versational remark about another weather forecast at 3 a.m. was not unreasonable and there was no need to promise a scheduled broadcast In fact, the forecast • was given at 3 a.m. No an--1 nouncer is permitted to postpone scheduled announce 1 ments in favour of pop, ■ classical music, or anything else.”]

Tax on diesel fuel Sir,4*l thank Mr Seath for his reply but with due respect can only say that the time spent in writing this reply was utterly wasted. It smacks of a typical departmental attitude, and tells us nothing we were not aware of. However, the main point of my complaint is that most of us thought that taxation on oil fuels was to be solely for propulsion purposes so as to drag in the many thousands of non-ratepayers who are motorists. It is unjust to virtually double-tax the users of diesel fuel for heating purposes. This point is completely side-stepped and the Minister’s final comment that other fuels such as coal, gas, and wood are not taxed is superfluous. It is something I had already stated with the addition that coal is subsidised. Diesel fuel users are a minority, and perhaps do not count politically, but minorities are entitled to justice and not to be brushed aside with fatuous comment —Yours, etc., H. E. RADLEY. February 19, 1971.

Sir,—l would like to add my protest over paying If cents a gallon on fuel oil for space heating, on top of a $36 rise in rates since 1968 and a double charge in the same period for having the heater

cleared. I wonder what other tax will be thought of to help the town ratepayer.—Yours, etc., E.R. February 19, 1971. Sir,—Regarding the tax on diesel fuel for home heating purposes, I have wished that each time a letter appeared the writer would address a copy to his M.P., where it would do more to convey disapproval to the Government. Mr Seath’s answer to Mr H. E. Radley in this morning’s paper seems to miss at least two points which affect the majority of users. One is that most home heating fuel has kerosene (non-tax-able) additive which becomes taxable, suddenly, on being delivered as a mixture. Second, if diesel oil is used in production of electricity or gas, the oil is then non-tax-able.—Yours, etc., MULTIPLE TAX. February 19. 1971. [This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., "The Press.”]