RADIO BROADCASTING

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 218, 13 August 1940, Page 8

RADIO BROADCASTING

POLICY ASSAILED. MR ALGIE AND~GOVERNMENT. The Government’s policy in relation to radio broadcasting was assailed in an address given in Auckland to-day by Mr R. M. Algie under the auspices of the Now Zealand Freedom Association. Among other matters, the speaker advocated a reduction in the annual fee paid by license holders, and urged that the Government be asked to refrain, as far as possible, from the use of 'Sunday evenings for the purposes of making broadcasts of a political nature.

All loyal citizens would agree that, at t'he present time, criticism of tho Government should be avoided -so far as that is at all possible, Mr Algie said. The war must and should come first. The task of winning it was so completely “all-embracing" that very few people had cither the will or the power to give much attention to anything else. If, therefore, one could honourably escape from the task ol criticising the broadcasting policy of the Government, one would bo more than glad to do so. Unfortunately, however, the unfair and undemocratic use of radio by the Labour Party had not been solely a war-time activity, nor was it even a war-time necessity. “The Government has itself insisted that during the war the party system shall be maintained with little, if any, real modification,” the speaker proceeded. “One of its leading Ministers has said that he could see ‘no earthly reason for a coalition’ of political parties during the war. If that is the attitude of the Government, how can it reasonably ask everyone else to sink all their differences and to co-operate to the full, when it is unable to give a lead for unification in its own special field of politics. There is a further point. It seems to be a widely held opinion that the Governments onesided use of radio for political purposes is in itself' producing a reaction calculated to hinder the development of that much desired and truly necessary spirit of unity. Finally, _if the Government insists on the continuance of t'he party system, it must recognise that, in a democracy, minorities have rights, and that they are entitled to have those rights protected through an ] effective Opposition. Party government presupposes the existence of an Opposition, and it implies that the Opposition shall have a right to be heard. If t'lie Government continues the system of party politics in war time, it is in duty bound to give to the Opposition a reasonable chance to criticise and to state its case; and, under those circumstances, a Government which makes a repeated and almost continuous use of a State or public utility for the promulgation of its own views, should give to its official opponents an opportunity to reply. Democracy connotes equality of opportunity, and if the Government violates that principle it threatens democracy itself. We have all waited for years for the Opposition to make a determined and effective protest against an abuse that has been long continued and deliberate; and if the Opposition is unable to achieve a satisfactory solution, it is time that ffhe people ‘themselves called attention to it and lodged a vigorous protest. All are ready and willing to submit to restrictions, regimentation, and control as war-time necessities; all are prepared to make monetary and other sacrifices in the common cause. But no true citizen of our community should be prepared to stand silently by and see a fundamental principle of 1 democracy itself flouted and even seriously menaced. It is in defence of that principle and for that reason alone that this address has been prepared It the Government would only extend to the Opposition a reasonable measure of fair treatment with regard; to the use of the air, a tremendous! obstacle in the way of complete ‘ cooperation would be at once removed. COMPARISON OF FEES. “It is high time that listeners protested —and protested in emphatic terms —against the excessive iees charged by tho Labour Government for the broadcasting service,” Mr Algie went on. The sum paid by New Zealanders was far too high when compared with that paid by listeners in other parts of the world. In general, wo paid 5s a year- more than license holders in other countries, and we paid 7s or 8s a year more than was needed by the Government to provide us with tho service we received. The failure of the Government to reduce license fees ■was just one more example of a steadily growing total of broken promises. When the Hon. F. Jones introduced the Broadcasting Bill in 1936, he contended that the service should be controlled by the Government 60 that it could be run “in the interests of the people.” “Was it in their interests, asked Mr Algie, “to charge them 7s or 8s a year more than was necessary ” In his speech in the House Mr Jones went further and said that if profits were made they would come back to the people. In point of fact, huge profits had been made; they already reached the enormous sum of nearly £700,000. Had those profits, or any part of them, been returned to the people m the form of reduced fees ? In this country license holders paid 25s per annum; out of that, sum 7s went in making provision for programmes, 9s were used to meet the costs of the service, and 9s were carried off to a reserve consisting in part of accumulated profits. On these figures, it was quite easy to argue that during last year each license holder could °bave received for 17s or 18s a service for which he was compelled to pay 255. He was, in. effect, overcharged by about 7s or 86. The time for a vigorous protest was long overdue when it was realised that less than one-third of excessive license fee was spent on programme and when it was understood that the sum kept back by the Government for reserves was far in excess of the amount spent upon the one thing tor which the fee was paid, namely, the provision of programmes. PARTY PROPAGANDA.

“There is not a shadow’ of doubt,” declared the speaker, “that some members of the Government had determined from the very beginning to use the radio services for the purpose of disseminating party propaganda.” Such an intention could be proved from the speeches and declarations of some of the members of the party. The facts themselves were beyond -dispute and established beyond doubt the existence of such an. intention.. The most glaring example of the evil complained of was afforded by the long-continued and regular broadcasts fiom the commercial broadcasting stations on Sunday evenings. It was to the lasting credit of Hon. P. Fraser that he had done so much to effect a marked improvement in this respect; and, in acting as he had done, he had followed a line that was perfectly consistent with his previous speeches regarding radio policy. It w r as, however, a matter for very serious complaint that the Government had for a number of years used the national stations in a manner that had been so conspicuously unfair.

‘lt is altogether beyond doubt,”

continued Mr Algie. “that the Labour Government has consistently and deliberately used the radio services of the people for political purposes; it is equally true that, in so acting, it has employed tactics that are unfair and wholly undemocratic.” The truth was, concluded Mr Algie, that in spite of the opinions of some members of the party, the Government had deliberately and for its own advantage pursued a policy which entirely denied equality of opportunity to its opponents and which, therefore, lacked one of the fundamental fea- , tures of democratic treatment.