Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1940. RADIO USE AND MISUSE

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 27, 31 July 1940, Page 6

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1940. RADIO USE AND MISUSE

Members of Parliament last night rightly made use of their privilege of criticising radio operation in New Zealand. Several aspects of the

present operation and control were subjected to strong adverse comment. Particularly was this so with respect

to the entirely inconsistent action of

the Government in continuing expensive building operations for the Commercial Broadcasting Service while discontinuing work for the National Service because of the war emergency. The National Service has an accumulated fund of £698,000, including £140,000 transferred from revenue last year. Over £300,000 of this fund is liquid, either cash or

temporary investments. There is ample money, therefore, for capital purposes. The Commercial Service, on the other hand, owes £77,000 to the National Service, and in its income and expenditure account shows a favourable balance of £417 for the year after writing off a fire loss and making provision for income tax. It is stated that the debt was reduced during the year by £24,900, but how this was done does not appear in the accounts. The "general administrative and running expenses" item of £116,000 is not analysed. On financial grounds, however, it is plain that, if either service has the right to launch out in capital expenditure the preference should be with the National Service. Yet it is the National work that is discontinued and the Commercial plans that are carried on. It is anomalous, to say the least, that the National Service which has the money should be debarred from spending it, and the Commercial Service, already heavily indebted, is allowed to spend more, presumably by borrowing more from the National Service. What the Commercial Service debt will be on account of this new building is not stated, but £60,000 has been mentioned. It is fair to assume that the debt which has been reduced from £101,000 will rise again to over £130,000. We do not suggest that National Service building plans should be carried on, but it is quite wrong that the Commercial Service should be treated in a more favourable way. The general arguments against wartime expenditure of this kind—conservation of funds, materials, and labour—apply to both services. An attempt was made last night to show that the Commercial' Service v need in Auckland is urgent, but -Dunedin people will claim that they also have a strong case on such grounds. There are many other public and private departments and enterprises that can also plead, that they are working in inadequate accommodation. Yet they must wait for improvement till after the war. On general questions of radio use the House was not so severely critical as it has been on previous occasions. It is recognised, we think, that the Prime Minister has removed or at least mitigated some of the political abuses that formerly justified the strongest protests. With national service broadcasts, for example, he has extended the range of speakers to include both political opponents and non-political organisations. This is in keeping with recognition that in the war there must be a national, not party, viewpoint. There are still, however, some reasons for complaint of political colour. Radio has been used, even in some of the Ministerial broadcasts, to support policies on which there are strong differences of opinion, and the other side has not been stated. And in the Commercial Service, though the more flagrant personal and political misuse of a national service has been checked, there is still a. pronounced favour shown to addresses some of which have a subtle, financial propagandist tendency. We have always maintained, and maintain still, that this is the consequence of political control. There cannot be complete fairness and impartiality when, even to the modified extent now permitted in the [ Commercial Service, so much authority is vested in persons who, by past partisanship, hare revealed their marked bias on controversial issues.