PARLIAMENT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 209, 3 August 1934, Page 7

PARLIAMENT

TO-DAY’S SITTING

BROADCASTING POLICY. MORE CRITICISM LEVELLED.

Per Press Association

WELLINGTON, Aug. 3. The House of Representatives met at 10.30 a.m.

Mr W. Nash gave notice of his intention to introduce the Hire Purchase Agreement Amendment Bill. The Napier and Suburbs Milk Bill (Mr W. E. Barnard) was introduced and read the first time.

The debate on the annual report of the Broadcasting Board was resumed.

Rev. O. Carr said, there was now a tendency to broadcast Ministerial statements, but a regrettable lack of tendency to broadcast statements in reply. He criticised the alteration of wavelengths, which hod prevented certain other stations being received.

Mr R. McKeen- said the members of the Broadcasting Board were political appointees and had no special knowledge of broadcasting requirements. He also referred to the ban on controversial statements an 4 said that if speeches of Ministers were published in the newspapers they were broadcast, but the Leader of the Opposition during his recent tour of the Dominion, although well treated by the Press Association, did not have his speeches broadcast. He appealed to the Government to put the parties on an equal footing. Mr J. A. Nash complimented the Broadcasting Board on the progress made and the quality of the programmes. He thought that more consideration should be given the B stations. He also considered the license fee should be reduced to £1 or £1 Is, and said ho hoped that would be done. Mr M. J. Savage said the sooner the muzzle came off the broadcasting system the better. Anyone who had anything worth saying should be able to put it over the air. He was hot satisfied that the newspapers were always the best selectors. He was in hopes that one day the proceedings of Parliament would be broadcast so the people would know what their representatives were saying. One newspaper, he said, had accused the Labour Party, during the Bible-in-Schools Bill discussion, of scoffing at religion. He resented it. If the speeches were broadcast, the people would hear actually what was said. Mr Savage said ho thought the Post and Telegraph Department should control broadcasting, not a board appointed from time to time according to a political creed. Much humbug was talked about advertising.

Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates: Are you in favour of advertising. Mr Savage: Anything that is a service to the people should be broadcast. He said he would like to hear the Government’s opinion of broadcasting the main debates in the House. Mr A. E. Ansell said that if it were not for the B stations _ there* would be a large reduction in the number of licenses. He thought that nothing unreasonable should be put in their way. He did not agree that there should be a development of advertising policy in the programmes. Mr H. T. Armstrong thought the B stations should be encouraged. He did not see anything wrong in their securing revenue by advertising. Ho contended that listeners should have some say in the election of the board. SPEECHES FROM THE HOUSE. Mr A. E. Jull urged the reduction of the license fee and agreed that the muzzle might be taken off sometimes, but it had to be done with caution. He thought that if the proceedings in the House ■ were broadcast either the licenses would drop considerably or the people would support the New Zealand Legion in its object of having the membership of the House reduced. Ihat might do away with the need for Hansard, hut it was doubtful if the saving effected would compensate for the sufferings of the people. Mr E. T. Tirikatene urged that freer use should he made of actual Muon performers instead of records. Mr A. J. StaUworthy thought that tens of thousands of people would be interested to hear the speeches from the House broadcast and commended Mr Savage for his suggestion. He said there was far too much pmpricking of the B stations by the Board or its officers. He was sure that as an educational medium radio must be developed more than it is to-day. He too, thought reduction of the license fee was due and thought that where £200,000 was being handled each year without the necessity for supplying a detailed statement there was a danger of profligacy of expenditure, though he did not make that charge against the board because he did not know what the expenditure was.