BROADCASTING

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLI, Issue 20441, 11 June 1936, Page 11

BROADCASTING

DOMINATION BY STATE MORE ATTACKS ON PRESS LONG DEBATE IN HOUSE By Telegraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, June 10. Tire House of Representatives met at 10.30 a.m. Urgency was accorded the passing of the Broadcasting Bill, the second reading of which was resumed by Mr W. J. Polson, who criticised the Hon. P. Fraser’s statement that the new station to be erected near Wellington would be used for the dissemination of Government propaganda. It had been said that the Opposition would be given a fair run. Who was to decide what was a fair run? The Minister would decide just how much Opposition propaganda would go through that station. Gramophone records were being made of Minister’s speeches, and they would be put over the air. The BUI was one that provided for the complete domination of the radio service of this country by a party for party interests. The sooner the country woke up and realised the intention behind that seemingly innocent measure the better for the country. He referred to the danger of political control, and said that it should be removed. He thought that when the people realised what was happening in that and other measures they would regard it as abhorrent to every principle of British tradition. He contended that the comparison of the New Zealand system with that of the 8.8. C. would not stand analysis, and claimed that the Government went to Hitler to get its broadcasting policy. Dr. D. G. McMillan said the public generally wanted to hear the policy of the Government. The Press to-day was fearful lest its jealously guarded advertising revenue should be Interfered with. Mr J. Hargest: Has it expressed any fear? Dr McMillan said in fact there had been a sort of truce between the Press and the broadcasting authorities, under which the broadcasting authorities would not advertise, and newspapers would not criticise broadcasting, but all that was now ended. He said the real trouble with advertising in America was that many of the stations were privately owned, but there could be no objections If stations were controlled by a Minister. “Views Distorted.” Dr McMillan claimed that the Press distorted views, and the public should consider that when considering privately owned broadcasting stations. He said nobody could object to political broadcasts provided the principles of fair play were observed. He said it was found that news was not broadcast until after it had appeared in the public Press, and said a judicious suppression of facts enabled newspapers to deceive their readers. He claimed that the opposition to broadcasting controversal matters came from the Press, because as long as programmes were kept dull, they would not interfere with newspapers. He thought a State owned service would give ample opportunity to discover and develop New Zealand talent. He asked the Minister when replying, to state the ground rents paid by the Broadcasting Board for the offices throughout New Zealand, and to whom they were made. Mr W. J. Broadfoot said there were three ways which broadcasting could be administered in the Dominion: It could be taken over as a State enterprise entirely, which was being done in that Bill; next it might have been given over to the private commercial interest wholly, and the only control they would have in such case would have been the censorship, as to whether there was any blasphemy or sedition or slander in the talks put over. The third was would be a public utility service, and a public utility service had much to commend it to the Dominion. He said the 8.8. C. system was a model system, and the countries that had allowed commercial stations had found it later to be a thorn in the sides. Tire policy of the Broadcasting Board had been prudently administered and to-day New Zealand had an excellent service. He thought advertising should be barred, and the service kept for educational and amusement purposes. He hoped the present Government would handle the service just as prudently and just as fairly as it had been administered in the past. He thought the people of the Dominion would rue the change. He also thought that the statements about the Press and advertising were exaggerated, and that the Press would not lose much advertising through the operation of the Bill.

Mr H. Atmore looked upon the placing of the control of broadcasting with a public man as a step in the right direction, and the representatives of the people would now have control of the people’s service. The . subsidising of B stations was a matter that required urgent attention, and if they were not allowed to advertise they must be subsidised. He supported Parliamentary broadcasting, so that people could hear exactly what was being said, and what was happening in the House. Promise to B Stations. The Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates criticised the Minister for stating that the Labour Party had promised to give B stations assistance, and help if they were returned to power. Mr Savage: I said on every platform that I was talking to the people of the country, not to B stations. Mr Coates; The promise that was made to assist B stations had put the Government in an awkward situation. The Labour Party could not conscientiously or logically support private stations. A promise or undertaking definitely must have been made between B stations and the Government prior to their coming into office. Government voices: No agreement was made.

Mr Coates said if it had not been for that promise they would not have the Government introducing a measure of that kind, which not only perpetuated but increased the status of the

B stations. The Labour Party were caught out by ail ill-considered promise that was made and the Government had to live up to that promise. Mr Coates thought the Government was going far beyond requirements and the unwritten law of democracy In taking control of broadcasting. If the Bill became law it was safe to prophesy that it would be far from satisfying the feelings and requirements of the country. \

Referring to newspaper publicity, Mr Coates said he had never known a Government that had been given such fulsome reports as the present Government as the present Government, and no soonei- had any Government come into office than it had been criticised from one end of the country to the other, and even now the press found fault with the Opposition because they were not able to stop the battalions of the Labour Government passing legislation. He opposed advertising over the air, and said newspapers would not object to it, because in countries where advertising was allowed over the air newspaper advertisements were bigger than ever. Pleas for Local Talent. Mr R. A. Wright said newspapers’ leading articles had been classed as bigoted and vindictive. He held no brief for the newspapers, but as far as he had been able to read since the elections, newspapers had been most mild in their criticism. He thought the references to the newspapers had been rather severe. Mr Wright Said he was absolutely opposed to advertising in any form, and said no money would be made from advertising unless the advertisers were given the full value for their money. He did not think local talenfc had been treated fairly. Mr Wright said that newspaper reporters had always treated members fairly and often had knocked their speeches into shape. Cause For Apprehension The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said it was significant that there was no expression of opinion from members on the Government side of the House. He said that the taking over of the control of wireless was bound to affect its progress, and the change would not bring about any greater satisfaction than there had been in the past. Complete control was being given, to the Government, and when it was learned how the Government intended to use it it gave cause for apprehension. It was a case of a new broom sweeping clean, and some useful furniture might be swept away in the process. Regarding treatment by the newspapers, Mr Forbes said the Opposition’s remarks were published in tabloid form, but everything the Prime Minister said was published in full. If the prime Minister was not receiving a fair run, what would he want from broadcasting? The past Government had tried to establish a service that was free and unfettered, leaving the Minister the power of veto, and it had worked well. He thought that commercial advertising over the air was a retrograde step, and said the power had been taken entirely as a weapon against the newspapers. He objected to the State going into the market to sell advertising over the air, and said it was opening up a new avenue. It would mean additional cost to the people, as one advertiser would be forced to take advantage of wireless if a competitor did. He felt that the Labour Party on getting into office had lowered their standard, and the fact that they were going to have advertising over the air was a great fall from the standard set by the Labour Party. Mr F. W. Schramm said Mr Forbes had said the Bill established tyranny, and he asked the House to compare it with some of the measures passed by the previous Government. He instanced the threat of dismissal of civil servants if they criticised the then Government. He agreed that the Minister should have control. All control was political. Tire Party in power appointed persons to the positions they occupied. He thought the establishment of C stations and giving them advertising was very necessary. He also agreed with subsidising B stations.

A Dictatorship Mr S. G. Smith contended that political control could not possibly lead to fairness. He thought New Zealand should follow the British system which had met with the approval of the people. The Government was changing the system without consulting the listeners, and many of the listeners who were opposed to the Government would be used to spread Government propaganda, and the House was told that that was fair and just. The Bill which seemed a simple one, was setting up a dictatorship in the hands of the Government, and he thought the Prime Minister would in time regret it. Broadcasting should be used in the national interest, and as a national service, but in future it would be used to bolster up the Government. Tire Minister was just taking power to set up an advisory council. He might not set one up, but if he did establish a council the Minister need not consult it. The Broadcasting Board had improved the position in New Zealand and had done extremely good work, yet it was to be abolished. He had always thought that B stations should be encouraged and he congratulated the Minister on the provision to help them. Minister Replies The Hon. F. Jones, in reply, said the opposition to the measure came under four heads—the abolition of the Broadcasting Board, the granting , of subsidies to B stations, the use of license fees and commercial stations. The Board had refused to allow controversial subjects to be discussed over the air, in spite of the past Minister’s permission. He claimed that Ministerial control was a step forward and said that Ministerial control had existed under the last Government. Regarding Mr Coates’ statement that the Government had an agreement with B stations, Mr Jones said all the time he was in the House the question of support for B stations was repeatedly raised. He mentioned stations that had been bought out by the last Government and other B station proprietors were concerned lest they would be forced off the air. At the present time license fees were being used to subsidise stations. The Government spent more than £20,000 on advertising. Why should some of that not be used to advertise over the air. It seemed the only fear of members was that advertising would be lost to the newspapers. Mr Coates' statement that the newspapers supported the Government was laughable, and if the

day came when newspapers did come over to the Government’s side, the Government would have to look at itself to see what was wrong. The Government did not believe in dlcatorships, nor did it agree with what was taking place in Germany, but references had been made to what was being done in that country regarding the manufacture of cheap seats. Parliamentary broadcasts had assisted to popularise broadcasting and he predicted that the number of licenses would show an increase during the present year. Regarding the rents that were paid for premises, Mr Jones said In Wellington in all for three buildings £1973 a year was paid. He did not say there was anything wrong in that. It might be necessary. In Christchurch £B5O was paid. The Rev. Clyde Carr: Too much. Mr Jones: I do not know. I am not a judge of that. In Dunedin portion of the “Evening Star” building was used, the amount paid being £670. Mr W. T. Anderton: Scandalous. The second reading was challenged but was passed at 4.20 p.m. by 49 votes to 19. The House went into Committee to consider the Bill. Speaking on the short title, the Hon. A. Hamilton said that most of the B stations bought out by the last Government were poor insignificant stations except two. Information Wanted. Mr Broadfoot asked what stations were to be subsidised. There were 21 of them and the House was entitled to that information and what the rates were to be. Mr Wright sought information as to what was to be broadcast in the way of political matter. The Prime Minister had said that Government speakers would say something that would help the country along. What did he mean by that? Mr Savage: I can tell you in a minute. Nothing is reported from this side of the House because we want the legislation to go through, but it is reasonable to think that something is being done to support our legislation, but that seldom appears in the newspapers. Mr W. P. Endean said that no one would say the board would not produce a better programme than the Minister and the Advisory Council. The principle covering the judiciary was that it should be free from political control, and the same principle should apply to broadcasting. Mr Carr asked if some arrangement were not entered into between the newspapers and the broadcasting authorities that newspapers would not use news picked up by short-wave from Continental and American stations if the broadcasting authorities did not advertise. He realised that there was nothing on the department’s files regarding the arrangement. Mr Jones said there would be a department of broadcasting under the control of a Minister, who could delegate some of his powers to the Director-General, who would see that the Government’s policy was carried out. He assured the House that nothing would be put over the air from the Government commercial station that was not decent. The station would be run on business lines. No advertising rates had yet been determined and would not be fixed till the station was established. Mr H. S. S. Kyle said the Broadcasting Board was being wiped out, but an Advisory Council would be established in its place. What was the difference? Mr K. J. Holyoake asked on what basis the B stations to be subsidised would be subsidised.

Mr Jones said a survey would be made. Resort to the Closure. Mr Savage moved the closure at 8.10 and this was carried after a division by 43 votes to 15. The short title was then passed by 43 votes to 16. Replying to further questions, Mr Jones said it was intended by the Government to appoint a direct listeners’ representative on the Advisory Council, The Government contended that members of Parliament would be able to represent the listeners very well. The Minister might suggest to the Council that it should go into the question of staffing or into new buildings, but in the main its work would be to deal with programmes. Mr Jones said he visualised the time when the Postmaster-General would Still carry on the work of supervising the technical side of broadcasting and the new Minister of Broadcasting would look after the cultural side. If. at any time the Government was of the opinion that a senior Minister or Minister better ’ qualified should fill the important portfolio of broadcasting it would be easy to make an appointment. All that had been done was to provide for the position. Mr Wright said he was sure that there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction among listeners when they learned that a listeners’ representative was not to be appointed to represent them. Qualifications for Appointment The Prime Minister said it was not a question of appointing a board, it was appointing people to advise the Minister. The members of the council would be appointed because of what they knew of broadcasting, not because they happened to be listeners, nor because they happened to be organisers of the Reform Party or of the Labour Party or any other party. The Government's job would be to get hold of those men or women and appoint them as advisers to the Minister or his subordinates. He had told people all over the country that as long as there was a board listeners were entitled to be represented on it, but when this Bill was passed the Board would be past and the advisory council would be substituted. The council would be composed of persons to advise because of their knowledge and the Government’s job would be to get people with that knowledge. Mr Polson said farmers had certain views on the question of broadcasting and they were of the opinion that some representative of their interests should be on the advisory council. The Minister had said that one Minister would look after the cultural side. A voice: The agricultural side.

Mr Polson: No, the Minister does not know anything about agriculture. The side the Minister would look after will be the cultural. The Hon. W. Nash said there was a splendid case for listeners being represented on the advisory council, but there was no reason why every member of the advisory council should not be a listeners’ representative. The council was charged with one thing only, to satisfy the demands of listeners. Amendments Rejected Mr Coals,,; moved an amendment to clause three providing that the Broadcasting Corporation should consist of a Minister and three members elected by

listeners and two members appointed by the Governor-General. The Hon. D. G. Sullivan described the amendment as a political stunt. Listeners would not be deceived by tactics of that kind. It was unadulterated humbug and miserable hypocrisy as when Mi- Coates had power to give listeners representation he refused to do it. The amendment was lost by 43 votes to 18. Opposition members protested against the abolition of the Board, but the clause was retained by 43 votes to 18. Mr Polson moved an amendment to the next clause to provide that the Minister should act only after consulting the advisory council. The amendment was lost by 43 votes to 17. The clause was challenged but was retained by 43 votes to 18. Mr Broadfoot moved an amendment to clause 5 dealing with the appointment of a director of broadcasting, deleting the provision that the director shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General-in-Council. He said that as the clause read at present the director could be dismissed at a moment's notice, and he wondered what sort of a man would accept office under such conditions. The amendment was lost on the voices. A division was called for on clause six dealing with the appointment (Z officers other than the director, but the clause was retained by 43 votes to 18. A further amendment that the advisory council should consist of the Minister and three members elected by listeners, and two others appointed by the Governor-General was lost by 47 votes to 18. Mr Kyle moved an amendment providing that the advisory council should meet as the council itself decided, not as the Minister decided, but the amendment was lost on the voices. An amendment was moved by Mr Forbes to clause 12 to delete the subclause providing that moneys derived from the operation of commercial stations should be paid into the broadcasting account. Mr Polson said the clause was an attack on the newspapers. The amendment was defeated by 48 votes to 18. Coming to clause 14, Mr Forbes moved an amendment to delete the sub-clause giving the Government power to advertise from commercial stations. The amendment was defeated by 48 votes to 18 and the clause retained by the same figures. The committee stages were completed and the Bill was reported to the House without amendment, reach, a third time and passed.