Broadcasting Adds to Political Fuel

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 433, 15 August 1928, Page 13

Broadcasting Adds to Political Fuel

RADIO AND RACING MR. HOLLAND’S SHARP CRITICISM (THE SUN’S Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. An admission by the Prime Minister that he was nervous when speaking through the microohone was one of the bright lights of today’s discussion on broadcasting, inspired by the production of the Post and Telegraph Department’s report. Mr. H. E. Holland opened a broadside of criticism with an attack on the attitude of the Racing Conference concerning the broadcasting of race results. “The Racing Conference,” said Mr. Holland, “seems to be taking to itself the powers of both the Courts and Parliament, to both of which it seems to consider itself superior. What is the attitude of the department? Members of Parliament themselves had the opportunity of listening to the broadcast account of the Heeney-Tunney fight, and there is surely no difference between listening-in to horse-racing and listening-in to lighting. Any veto should be a veto issued by Parliament alone.” He went on to discuss broadcasting of political speeches, and hoped that in future wireless would not be used in the interests of one party alone. He quoted a statement broadcast on the Singapore Base, and another broadcast by Sir Mau Pomare, as instances of the intrusion of politics into broadcasting. It was stupid to ban political speeches altogether, but the practice was objectionable so long as only one side was permitted to be given. Mr. D. G. Sullivan said a l’ar better arrangement would be State ownership of the broadcasting service. “WELL, I’M SURPRISED” The Prime Minister said no matter what was done, it would be open to criticism. The statement on Singapore represented the opinion of threefourths of the House. Mr. Holland: It is not a question of who is right or wrong, but of allowing both sides of the case to be stated. Mr. Coates: It was a pure statement of fact. If we are going to turn the microphone into an instrument of party politics, it is questionable whether that wfill be any good lor politics. Beyond that the question of what was broadcast was a domestic concern for the Broadcasting Company itself. The same could be said of broadcasting of racing events. It was a matter between the Racing Conference and the company. Racing was better controlled by the conference, under the present arrangement, than it ever would be by Parliament. He had no information on the point, but it was a matter between the two. Mr. V. H. Potter: And the poor old public suffers. Talking of political broadcasting, Mr. Coates asked Mr. Holland if the company had never asked him to speak through the microphone. Mr. Holland: Never. Mr. Coates: Well, I am surprised. He added that he did not know what advice to give the hon. member. Personally, being of a nervous disposition, he disliked the microphone. It was hard to talk to a gathering of farmers, for instance, without talking politics. Perhaps the only solution would be to ask the Broadcasting Company to allow Mr. Holland and MV. Forbes to speak. He was willing to form part of a deputation to the company. DEBT COLLECTORS Mr. E. J. Howard said the apparent principle behind broadcasting was that listeners-in paid to get something they wanted. Instead, they were simply given what the Broadcasting Company felt like giving them. He agreed, however, that broadcasting of racing was a matter for the company and the conference. “The Government,” he said, “is just the debt collector for a private company. The only way out of the chaos will be for the Government to take over the service.” “It is totally unfair that on the crystal sets, which are used to educate and entertain the children of the nation, the same licence fees as on large valve sets should be paid,” said Mr. A. M. Samuel. “I can’t see anything against reducing this absurd fee,” he added.