RADIO LICENCE FEES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 84, Issue 191, 15 August 1940, Page 10

RADIO LICENCE FEES

CLAIM FOR REDUCTION CASE STATED BY MR. ALGIE AUCKLAND, Aug. 14. “It is high time that listeners protested—and protested in emphatic terms —against the excessive fees charged by the Labour Government for the broadcasting service,” said the director of the New Zealand Freedom Association, Mr. R. M. Algie, in an address in the Auckland Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday afternoon. The title of the address was “The Misuse of Radio,” and the purpose of the meeting was to consider the evidence upon which such an allegation could be based. Mr. Algie said 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, we paid 5s a year more than licence-holders in other countries, and we paid 7s to 8s a year more than was needed by the Government to provide us with the service we received. The failure of the Government to reduce licence 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 so that it could be run "in the interests of the people.” Mr. Jones’ Promise 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 aready reached the enormous sum of nearly £700,000. Had those profits, or any part of them, been returned to the people in the form of reduced fees? Mr. Jones seemed to be in some doubt as to the value of his promise, for he went on to say that the Government could use such profits for the improvement of the service or for “any other purpose that may be necessary.” Did that look like giving the profits “back to the people?”

It was interesting to note, said the speaker, that only a few days ago, the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, when questioned about the immense profits from licence fees, was reported to have said that while building operations were temporarily suspended the accumulations of profits were being utilised by the Treasury.” Four years ago, Mr. Clyde Carr, when speaking in the House, had declared empiiar cally that the Labour Government’s control of radio would be democratic and that it would be operated in me interests of all the people all the time.’ How could it be in their interest to charge them 7s or 8s a year more than was necessary? Over-charge of 7s In this country, licence-holders paid 25s per annum. Out of that sum, 7s went in making provision for programmes, 9s was used to meet the costs of the service, and 9s was 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 licence-holder could have received for 17s or 18s a service for which he was compelled to pay 255. He was, in effect, overcharged by about 7s or Bs. This state of affairs, besides being unfair and unjust, was in direct conflict with a statement made some years ago by the present Prime Minister. Mr. Fraser, speaking m 1936, was reported to have said that “the Labour Government desnes that those who pay the licence fees shall get the greatest advantage at the lowest possible cost.” Could it be said that they were receiving these blessings “at the lowest possible cost” when they were being over-charged 7s or 8s a year and when their fees had been said to be ihe highest in the world? The time for a vigorous protest was long overdue when it was realised mat less than one-third of an excessive licence fee was spent on programmes and when it was understood that the sum kept back by the Government reserves was far in excess of the amount spent upon me one thing for which the fee was paid, namely, tze provision of programmes. It was interesting to note that when a proposal was put forward in the House for a reduction in licence fees, tire matter was treated as a party issue and was opposed and voted against by the Labour members. Apparently the Labour Government did not favour a reduction in consumer’s costs. Instalment Plan Withdrawn The speaker added that there was another pomt which ought not to be lost sigln. of. Labour memoers had repeatedly stated that the broadcasting service was to be operated in the interests "of the people.” In spite of their many protestations to this effect it was worth remembering that early in the present year the privilege of paying licence fees by quarterly instalments had been taken away from the people and in its place they had been requested to make their contribution half-yearly in advance. In other words the conditions of payment had been made harder by the Government which boasted loudly and repeatedly of its burning desire to look after the interests of "all the people all the time.” The following motions'were carried: (1) That in view of the financial position of the radio services as disclosed in the reports submitted to garliament, the Government be asked to give favourable consideration to the question of the reduction of the annual fee paid by licence-holders. (2) That the Government be asked to refrain, as far as possible, from the use of Sunday evenings for the purposes of the making of broadcasts of a political nature. Rights of Opposition (3) That in its use of the radio it be requested to adhere to those principles of justice and fair play which are the basis of a democratic system; and that, in the light of such principles, it be urged to extend to the official Opposition, as a matter of right, an opportunity to broadcast equivalent to that which it claims and exercises for itself.