IS IT A LUXURY?

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 438, 20 May 1937, Page 2

IS IT A LUXURY?

RADIO IN THE HOME Unionist’s Definite “No” Sydney, May '7. Some years ago when a Royal Commission was sitting here to investigate changes in the cost of living considerable public interest was jroustdi by an argument over wireless sets. Certain minor officials maintained that radios are not a luxury but a ‘‘necessity of life” in the official sense to the worker. Of course this contention was derived by the Conservative Press, which reconciled the idea that provision should be made out of wages for such aa expensive thing. The unian delegates, however, did not regard wireless simply as a means of , amusement. They eviden ly had in view the importance and value of radios as educational agencies on the political side, and it was for this reason that they pressed their case so hard. .On that occasion the advocates? of wireless ag. a necessity of life seemed to make little headway here, but it happens that tne question has come up for discussion before the Arbitraion Court at Melbourne this week, and thus public attention has been attracted to it again. Unionists’ Protest. Chief Justice Dethridge was engag-

ed on hearing the claim of some 50 unions for a rise of 12s a week in wages, and in reply to a remark made by one of the delegates he express, ed the opinion that “a wireless set in the nome of. a basic wage-darner is a luxury.” Obvious as this may seem to some people, it was bitterly resented, and it has raised a storm of protest against? Judge Dethridge and his views. The railway workers employed at Newport have held a mass -meeting and passed a resolution to the following effect:—“That, if the attitude of the judge is maintained the representatives of

union withdraw from the case and the Court, and immediately arrange for sc ion and direct negotiation with the employers.” Some people may regard it as extravagant and irrational for the workers to consider lhe complete abandonment of arbitration on such a pretext as this, but the workers nowadays take this matter of wireless up seriously. According to the Labour Daily the viewpoint of unionists is that “a wirelees set is part of the standard of living determined by the changed methods of production and increased productivity’ in recent years,” and as such it is regarded as essential in the home of the average worker. One reason for this is that “radios' are cheaper than other forms of amusement, wnich are too expensive to be provided for on the basic wage.” It Question of Price. On the o her hand the union delegates insisted that a wireless set cannot be classed as a luxury, because it can be bought very cheaply. The capital cost of an ordinary set is £l5, and this may be spread- over a term of years, s o thiat -the set may cost 2s a week or even less, while provyiing amusement and instruction for the whole family. All this may be true, but radio may still be outside the range of the worker’s spending power and may 'thus be still a luxury. It is an interesting fact that neither before -the Royal Commission at Sydney nor before the Arbitration Court at Melbourne did the champions of radio suggest that to the worker and his political leaders wireless.; sets are chiefly useful, not because they provide amusement, but because they lend themselves so admirably to the distribution of political propaganda. This has been one of the most obvious uses of radios ever since they were invented, and readers, of H. G. Wells will remember how effectively in “The Sleeper Wakes” he predicts the utilisation of the “babble machine” to instil doctrines into the masses and to inoculate them with such beliefs as seem good to their lords and masters. These facts are realised clearly enough a-t the Trades Hall, the centre of Sydney’s industrial sysltem, and the conflict between Lang and Garden for the control of the State Labour

party’s wireless station ha s be«n one >f the most important political episodes of the year. It is in the political sense that the radio lias become a “neeossi y of life” to the worker, and- no doubt Judge Leth ridge knows it quite ay weil as the unionists themselves.