The Evening Star FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1936. WIRELESS JAMMING.

Evening Star, Issue 22233, 10 January 1936, Page 6

The Evening Star FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1936. WIRELESS JAMMING.

Nothing has less life usually than any election scandal, however exciting, resurrected after the polls. If an exception to the rule seems to be made at this stage by the new Postmaster-General’s-explanation of the jamming of the IZB (Friendly Road) radio station when an address was sought to be put over a few nights before the great decision, it is probably only because other explanations have yet to be given. There was nothing necessarily wrong with the jamming, except that it may well have been foolish. If the Rev. Mr Scrimgeour’s service was giving trouble, practically defying the regulation against political broadcasts by “ clever propaganda of a semipolitical nature,” as the past Post-master-General declares to have been its habit, the authorities had a perfect right to stop it. Mr Scrimgeour has denied that there was anything which gave any cause for being objected to in his frustrated address. But the authorities had cause to expect something more aggressive. A pamphlet had been issued in September; “ printed for the IZB Radio Club,” strongly attacking the wireless policy of the Government. The last paragraphs of it stated: ** Before election day arrives we will inform you what political party will mete out the justice our cause deserves. . . . Do you want the B stations? If so, await our pronouncement as to what party will give you freedom and life, and then vote accordingly.” The sequel to this appeared in another pamphlet, but it was not stated that pamphlets would be the last word. Mr Scrimgeour’s remarks, in the last of his “ routine Sunday evening talks ” which he could give before the elections, may have been inoffensive and harmless. There may have been a difference of interpretation. But a warning (or what easily could be accepted as a warning) of something more exciting had been given, and a Dunedin Labour candidates’ description of what most people expected from the address was as follows :—“lt had been generally accepted that the remarks which Mr Scrimgeour would make, while not political, would not tend to encourage people to vote for the present [i.c., National] Government.” In the circumstances it would not be surprising if somebody representing the authorities took no chances. The broadcast, as Mr Hamilton now admits, was prevented in the most effective faghion. Any other form of interference might have had the effect (though this is less than certain) that the address would be heard first, and the object of the .authorities frustrated. The stoppage effected, by an extraordinary means, was had tactics for the National Government. One political address over the air, while hundreds were being delivered otherwise, was unlikely to have an effect on votes that would he in any way comparable to that of the hue and cry which was bound to be made over the blockage. The interference was politically foolish, and no worse than that. But some circumstances still remain to be explained. If it was intended to prevent this transmission, why was that

not ! done openly ? Since it is now admitted by Mr Hamilton that his successor is right in saying that the interference was performed under instructions issued by the responsible authorities with his (Mr Hamilton’s) consent, how was Mr Coates able to say that “ neither the Government nor the Post Office nor the Broadcasting Board had the slightest connection with the occurrence, nor any knowledge of it.” Mr Coates may have assumed an ignorance, on the part of all other officialdom, which was genuine in his own case, and there was small time for Mr Hamilton, for example, to have corrected Mr Coates in the rush of the last hours before the election. Hamilton’s instructions may have been given, in a general way, long before the occasion arose of their application, and officials may have applied them in their own manner, with no political aspects in their minds. Mr Scrimgeour was invited to speak on the following night from IYA, where it would have been easy to close down his address if he had transgressed regulations. Why was that invitation not availed of? Why was so much difficulty experienced, in the first place, in getting an explanation from officials? All these things, or the most important of them, we may expect to know in due time, when other explanations are given. Possibly of all the “ incidents ” of a hectic election time it will then appear the smallest.