BROADCAST SPEECHES

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 120, 17 November 1932, Page 6

BROADCAST SPEECHES

ME. HOLLAND PEOTESTS

AMENDMENT DEFEATED

A protest against the uso of broadcasting facilities for tlie dissemination of political matters, unless the right were conceded to both sides, was voiced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland) in the House of Representatives yesterday : afternoon, when the Estimates of the Post and Telegraph. Department were under consideration. An amendment to reduce the vote was defeated by 40 votes to 24. Mr. Holland said that if the air was to be used—rand ha thought it should be —it should bo available to both sides of the House.- Prior to the Ottawa Conference, Mr. Coates had. delivered a policy speech which, was broadcast. Mr. Holland said that he had asked for the same right in connection with an address he proposed to deliver in Christchurch. Ho did not receive a reply until just before the meeting was due to commence and it practically amounted to a refusal. Mr. Holland said he took'the matter'up with the Postmaster-General, whose attitude was that,the Government must have the right to use the air for policy announcements, and Ministers could be relied! on to keep clear of political issues. Since Mr. Coates had returned from Ottawa he had delivered another/broadcast address on the results of Ottawa. Mr. Holland said he had no objection to 'Mr. Coates or any member of the Government speaking over the air so long as the same right was extended to the Opposition. He also referred to the paragraphs from the newspapers which were read over the air practically every night, and said that 'announcements of the Opposition weie never included. He moved that the vpte should be reduced by £1 as an indication that the right to broadcast' should be conceded to both sides of "the House "and not confined to the Government party alone. On a division the amendment "was defeated by 40 votes to 24. MINISTER'S ATTITUDE. The Postmaster-General (the Hon. A. Hamilton) said that the wireless vote was for the Post and Telegraph services, not broadcasting. He was drawing a distinction between a speech and a written statement handed to the Broadcasting Board, when the Leader of the Opposition asked: Did the Minister of Public Works hand in his statement? The Minister: It was considered, anyway. While the operator was there a speech could be switched off if it was not in accordance with good taste, said Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Holland: Was the Minister of Public Works-required to hand in Ms statement in writing before ho delivered it? The Minister: That I could not say at this stage. Mr. Holland: I don't think he was. The Minister: There was no political meeting; ho was making a public statement as he was leaving New Zealand. Mr. E. Semple (Labour, Wellington East): It was a party statement. Mr. Holland: Would I be given the same right? The Minister: I think it would be considered. I don't think the statement the Minister made before he left for Ottawa was very controversial. It is a different matter broadcasting a public meeting. Tho Leader of the Opposition wanted to broadcast the reply at a public meeting. PUBLIC INFORMATION Mr. Holland: I requested to have my statement on. Ottawa broadcast. The Minister: There is no desiro to curtail the public from .getting information. Mr, Semple: We get your politics overy day through tho wireless. Tho Minister said it must be admitted that Ministers had a little bit more right. Mr. Holland: Not a bit more. Tho Minister said that tho broad-' casting of political meetings was a thing to bo considered. It was quite a dif-. fe-rent matter when a written statement was made. He was not denying that it was done in other .countries, and there was perhaps, no particular reason why it should not. There: fras tho question whether the people who paid fees would listen in and have their time taken up in that manner. Mr. Semplo: You can always switch I off. I