WIRELESS MONOPOLY

Grey River Argus, 6 May 1933, Page 5

WIRELESS MONOPOLY

FOR THE COALITION Mr Holland Exposes An Injustice (Per Press Association). CHRISTCHURCH, May 5. Au address was given at a public meeting nt Kaiapoi to-nUht by Mr lI.E. Holland, the leader of the opposition. In the course of his speech Mr Holland said that the deduce of ths Raido Broadcasting Board by its Chairman Air Vickery, made yester day, contained two statements that called for the closest Mr Vickery had pleaded that regulations prohibited the Board freak Broadcasting cont raversial matter and also that, under the regulations, the Board was compelled to broadcast Government statements. In the first case. Mr Holland said, the Board, day by day. was broadcasting matter that was highly controversial, and it was therefore, flouting the. regulations if tin* second statement was true, he declared that they were confronted with one of the gravest, administrative scandals that New Zealand had ever known The broadcasting act of 1931, said Mr Holland, bestowed no power whatever on the iGovern ( ment to compel the Broadcasting Board to broadcast its statements, and to shut out those of the oj position. It was clearly, another case of the Government promulgating, by order-iu Council. measures which over-ride legislative enactments. It was the extreme of absurdity that MrCoatcs should be permitted Io broadcast the favour of the Ottawa decisions, while the opl osition was denied facilities to examine critically the same decesions Either wireless broadcasting shou’M have been made available for both sides of Parliament, or. in interests fairness ami common decency, it should have been denied to both to make a eroat national service, a 1 proyiaganda monopoly of the party :n office was something that could not be tolerated.