Broadcasting freedom crumbling — Labour

Press, 29 August 1979, Page 6

Broadcasting freedom crumbling — Labour

PA Wellington! The standards of New Zea-' land's broadcasting system were crumbling through political interference and the Government’s failure to allow higher television licence fees, the Opposition alleged in Parliament yesterday. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Tizard) said during debate on the Broadcasting Estimates that by denying the Broadcasting Corporation higher licence fees the Government had deprived the system of its in-! dependence. Mr J. L. Hunt (Lab.. New Lynn) said the licence fee, should have been increased realistically, then indexed to' inflation.

Mr F. M. Colman (Lab.. Pencarrow) told the House that licence fees had not been increased in four years. The Broadcasting Corporation had asked for a rise of 20c a week, but had been refused when virtually al] Government charges were increas-

ing. But the Minister of Broadcasting (Mr Templeton) said the corporation could manage without a fee-rise. “The corporation should seek to live within its income,” he said.

He believed the corporation had shown responsibility through measures announced recently to restrain its

spending. The Prime Minister (Mri Muldoon) said there was' ample evidence the corporation could make up its

revenue through advertising “if they are of a mind too.” Mr Muldoon’s appearance on television and his simultaneous radio broadcast nationally last month to announce the scrapping of the| 'General Wage Order and a | general wage rise was ! strongly criticised by the Opposition as an example of political interference. Mrs Ann Hercus (Lab., Lyttelton) said the first approach for the telecast from the Prime Minister’s press secretary to the Broadcasting Corporation had been rejected.

But when Mr Muldoon made the same request to the chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation (Mr lan Cross) a few hours later, Mr Cross had agreed. She described this as a “frightening example of the crumbling of broadcasting independence.” Mr Templeton said Mr Cross had agreed to the request after Mr Muldoon had provided him with more information on which to base a decision. The memorandum covering more telecasts by the Prime Minister on statements of public importance was also attacked by the Opposition. Mr R. L. Bailey (Lab. J Heretaunga) said the only safeguard against abuse of these “fireside chats” by the Prime Minister was public reaction. But that was no safeguard against the present Prime 'Minister, he said. “The ruthlessness the Prime Minister had demonstrated on

so many occasions will be perpetuated on our screens,” Mt Bailey said. Mr Templeton denied Opposition allegations that there was no precedent for |Mr Muldoon’s public statement last month, he said the acting Labour Prime Minister (Mr H. Watt) had made a public statement on television in 1973 and had consulted no-one beforehand. The memorandum was based on procedures adopted by the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Templeton said.

“Wfiile the requests will come from the Prime Minister, the corporation will make the decision,” he said. Mr Muldoon had a “fascination” with broadcasting and was the de facto Minister of Broadcasting, said Mr M. K. Moore (Lab., Papanui).

The Government wanted to centralise television news because it was “easier” to keep its thumb on one organisation than two, he said. Such a news monopoly contradicted the National Party’s principles of private enterprise. The broadcasting guidelines had been established by the Broadcasting Corporation as a defence. “They exist because the Broadcasting Corporation wants to defend itself from future onslaughts by the Prime Minister.” It did not want him to “commandeer their resources” or “take over both television channels,” as he did last month, Mr Moore said.