The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 1973. Independence for the broadcasters

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33189, 31 March 1973, Page 14

The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 1973. Independence for the broadcasters

The former Minister of Broadcasting (Mr Walker) has been disputing the Government's intention to remove from the legislation on broadcasting a clause that requires the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation to comply with written directions from the Minister of Broadcasting. The Government intends to abandon this requirement when it sets up new public corporations for radio and television. From what has been said in Parliament, it appears that the Government believes that the requirement imperils the independence of the corporation. Mr Walker, on the other hand, insists that the requirement for any instruction to be in writing ensures the exposure of Government intervention and lays it open to public debate. This assurance of openness is certainly preferable to the possibility of covert political influence.

Both arguments overlook the practicalities of the relationship between a public corporation and the public. Given a board of competent, representative people, devoted to the cause of broadcasting in the public interest, a corporation might seem to require no other supervision. If the corporation s members serve reasonably long terms and retire in rotation, there should be little room for any subservience to outside pressure. In the normal course of events, the corporation should be allowed to chart its own course on the public's behalf. But the corporation must remain accountable to the public; and this ordinarily means that the corporation must give an account of itself, through a Minister, to Parliament.

If this account is to be of any consequence, Parliament and the Minister must have some course by which they can direct the actions of the board. It would be absurd if the corporation’s report disclosed a serious mishandling of the corporation s responsibilities and neither Parliament nor the Minister could do anything about it. For example, the present corporation is empowered to broadcast from short-wave stations; and the corporation is the obvious organisation to undertake New Zealand s overseas broadcasting. The Government should be able to require the corporation to continue such broadcasts and, if necessary, direct that they be run in a way that serves New Zealand’s interests. The Minister may now direct the corporation regarding these short-wave broadcasts and his directions should be a matter of public record. Unlikely as it is to do so, the N.Z.B.C. might decide to stop broadcasts in the Maori language. If the Government wished these broadcasts to continue, or to be extended, the Minister should surely have the opportunity to address the corporation. In spite of some public objections to what the N.Z.B.C. does, general satisfaction with its performance and its responsiveness to public needs have made Government intervention unnecessary. If a Government objects to the possibility of political interference it has the answer in its own hands: it should not interfere and it should not appear to interfere. The corporations independence should deoend on its performance rather than on legislation giving it unchallengeable autonomy.