Broadcasting Bill ‘ruthless control’

Press, 14 October 1976, Page 6

Broadcasting Bill ‘ruthless control’

PA Wellington The Broadcasting Bill introduced in Parliament yesterday was attacked by the Opposition as a reintroduction of political censorship and political control.

The Opposition spokesman on broadcasting, Dr G. A. Wall (Porirua), asked what was the evil under the present system that the sweeping reconstruction was going to cure?

The justification for “this tight ruthless political control" had been over expenditure by the three present corporations, he said. But Parliament had not yet even debated the estimates of expenditure for the three corporations. "I think it is most signifi-j cant that this bill has been introduced in the House before the House has had an opportunity to review and debate the estimates of expenditure.” Dr Wall said if the bill was not intended to introduce political control why had one man been appointed to coordinate the three news services? Dr Wall said the Broadcasting Tribunal would be under the direction of the Minister. “It’s been suggested that Ministerial responsibility is important. Wei see Ministerial direction in the day-to-day direction. “If that’s not true why does he arm himself with very strong controls?” Dr Wall asked.

Mr B. E. Brill (Nat., Kapiti) said the Opposition had raised the old bogey of political interference again but had produced not one shred of evidence other than the corporation would be responsible to the Minister. He described the bill as an evolutionary measure which contained the sound measures of the old N.Z.B.C. structure and retained the “few good points” of the system brought in by Labour.

Mr Brill said the bill allowed no opportunity whatsoever for political manipulation because the wording had been weakened so that the corporation was required only to “have regard to a direction” from the Minister. Dr A. M. Finlay (Lab, Henderson) referred to clause 20 of the bill which gave the Government power to give directions to the corporation. “We know that the Government comprises the Prime Minister. Any direction will be given by the Prime Minister to his lapdog, the Minister of Broadcasting,” Dr Finlay said. Dr Finlay was asked to withdraw his reference to Mr Templeton as a “lapdog” by the Speaker (Sir Roy Jack). “The Minister is and will continue to be the messenger for the Prime Minister. He will run across from the third floor to Broadcasting House with the directions,” Dr Finlay said. The Minister of Social I Welfare and an ex Minister of Broadcasting, (Mr Walker) said there would be no interference with any day-to-day management of broadj casting. He said when he was the i Opposition spokesman on (broadcasting last year broadcasters had come to his office and asked if they ishould do what they had been instructed to do by Labour Party members. The folowing speaker, Mr J. L. Hunt (Lab., New Lynn) challenged Mr Walker to name one Labour member of Parliament who had instructed a broadcaster to do something. “The Minister of Social Welfare has misled the House and the country. If he was told that by broadcasters he was told lies.” The Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr Adams-

Schneider) said broadcasters were people of integrity and would not accept a directive from the Minister without referring it to the DirectorGeneral. Any directive would be made public within hours and the Minister would have to be prepared for it to come under public scrutiny. Mr A. J. Faulkner (Lab., Mt Roskili) claimed the bill allowed the Government to use officers of the State for political purposes and attacked clause 20 which he said allowed no questioning of a Ministerial directive.

Mr Templeton, replying for the first time, said the Labour Party was using scaremongering tactics. He believed the Government had a mandate to introduce the bill. The Minister said it was not censorship that was involved but accountability. “We are establishing a public corporation to provide for public control. We can only have freedom by having a Minister accountable to this House.”

Mr C. J. Moyle (Lab., Mangere) said there was a very deep unease about the way in which the Government — especially the Prime Minister—had constantly eroded the basic freedom of people to take another point of view. “It is against the principle of individual freedom.”

Replying for the second time Mr Templeton said the country had to have a Minister of Broadcasting who had the answers.

“We are dealing not with Government control but with public control through a corporation,” he said. The bill was introduced on a division won 43-28 by the Government. Mr Templeton referred the bill to a special select committee that would be set up. Details of bill, Page .3.