MORE FREEDOM URGED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18466, 3 August 1934, Page 11

MORE FREEDOM URGED

RADIO iROADCASING V POLITICIANS ’ OPINIONS ' . .. V-“ BOARD’S REPORT DEBATED (Pariianientary .Reporter.) WELLINGTON, this *lay. . The debate on annual report of the Broadcasting Ward was resumed in ‘the House of Representatives today. ... i'.’Mr C. Carr (Lab., Timaru) said tint there was now a tendency to broadcast Ministerial statements, but a regrettable lack of tendency to broadcast sfatenients in rejily. lie criticised the alteration of \vrivc-lbrigths, which had prevented certain other stations being received.

Mr R. McKeen (Lab., Wellington Bobth) said that the htenibers of tiic Broadcasting Board wore political appointees, and had no special knowledge of broadcasting requirements. He also referred to the ban on controversial statements, and said that if the speeches of Ministers were publish*®! 1 in the newspapers they wore bro.SfflM*4 st * 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 oti an equal footing. Mr J. A.. Nash (Coal., Palmerston) complimented the Broadcasting Board on the progress made and the quality cj the. programmes. He thought more consideration should be given to B stations, and also considered that the license fee should be reduced to £1 or £1 Is. He hoped that that would be done.

Mr M. J. Savage, Leader of the Opposition, said that the sooner tile muzzle came off the broadcasting system the better. Anyone who had anything worth saying should be able td put it over the air. He was not satisfied that the newspapers were always the best selectors. lie was in hopes that one day the proceedings of Parliament would be broadcast, so that the people would know what their representatives were saying. One newspaper had accused the Labor Party, during the Bible in Schools Bill debate, of scoffing at religion, and he rtsented it. If the speeches were broadcast, the people would hear actually what was said. Mr Savage ,4did he that the Post and Telegraph Departitierit should control broadcasting, and riot a board appoiftted from timb to tilde according to political creed. Much hrirribug was talked about advertising. ■'The Rt. lion. J. G. Coates: Arc you ip favor of advertising? Mr Savage: Anything that is a service to the people should be broadcast. He would like to hear the Goii'riment’s opinion of the broadeamiS the main debates in the House. Mr E. A. Ansell (Coal., Clutlia) said taht if it was 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.the development of an advertising policy in programmes. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Auckland East) said he thought that B stations should be encouraged, and he did not she anything wrong in their securing revenue by advertising. He contended that listeners should have some gay in the election of the board. Mr A. E. .Tull (Coal., Waipawa) urged a reduction of the license fee. He agreed that the muzzle might be takeii off sometimes, but it had to be done with caution. He thought that if the proceedings of the House were broadcast, either licenses would drop considerably, or people would support the Legion in its object of having the membership of the House reduced. That might- do away with the need for Hansard, but he doubted if the saving effected would compensate for the sufferings of the people. Mr E. T. Tirikateno (Ind., Southern Maori) urged that freeer use should be made of actual Maori performers, instead of records. Mr A. J. Stallworthy (Ind., Eden) thought that tens of thousands of people would -be interested to hear speeches from the House broadcast. He commended Mr Savage for his suggestion. He said there was far too much pinpricking of B stations by the board or its officers. He was sure that as-an educational medium, radio must b<£developed more than it was to-day. He, too, thought that a reduction in the license fee was due. Where £200,000 was handled each year without the necessity of supplying a detailed statement, there was a danger of profligacy in expenditure, though he* Aid not make that charge agaiiist tSmboard, because he did not know wfhTThc expenditure was. . Mr W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) • said he thought that consideration might be given to charging a license fee according to the power of the set. He supported the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, and said that it members realised that thousands of people were listening to them they might show more discriminaion in what they said. There would be less false representation than at .present.

Mr; H. Atmorc (Ind., Nelson) disagreed with the graduated fee as persons .with move expensive sets had eoi.respondingly greater upkeep. le agreed, however, that the present fee was too high. He supported the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings, and said that some newspapers with party interests did not always present the full facts. .TMr. A. 8. Richards (Lab., Roskill) said that there was an overlapping of administration, and protested against the way the balance-sheet was presented, as members were unable to tell the amounts of various items. A full statement should be supplied. He urged the immediate abolition of the advisory council, which he replaced by a body elected by with a Government representative. ■ Mr. F. Langstone (Lab., Waimarino) said that the proportions of the salaries of those administering broadcasting was out of all proportion to other boards. -There was much complaint throughout New Zealand, hut listeners had to take .what was given to them.

The debate was interrupted by the adjournment