RADIO OUTBURST

Wairarapa Times-Age, 10 August 1938, Page 5

RADIO OUTBURST

LAST SUNDAY EVENING’S BROADCAST Strong Protest by Opposition in the House PREMIER ON MR SCRIMGEOUR’S POSITION RESIGNATION RECEIVED BUT NOT YET ACCEPTED (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Sunday night’s broadcast from 2ZB by the Controller Commercial Broadcasting Service, Mr C. G. Scrimgeour, was i the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon. The Rt Hon . W. Forbes (Hurunui) sought leave on behalf of ihe Opposition to mov the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a of “urgent public importance, the misuse and abuse of the national broadcasting service.” The motion was accepted by r pea' Hon W. E. Barnard, and the debate continued until the tea adjourn men Mr t that public servants should be strictly The Opposition regarded the on the National Party by Mr Scrimgeour as a breach of the privileges and duties of a public servant The attack was quite unwarranted, and it seemed to be the general X that not only the matter but the language used was very unHon M. J. Savage, who followed Mr Forbes, announced that the resignation of Mr Scrimgeour had been received last Thursday by the Acting-Minister of Broadcasting, the Hon F Jones. It had not yet been accepted. Mr Sava B e said he did not want politics broadcast over the air and that he had told thei commercial station directors so in a recent confeience. If the controller S a station ran amok it was to be deplored, but one could understand his feelings. Everything possible was being done to keep the broadcasting service as free as possible from personalities and politics.

MR FORBES’S INDICTMENT.

“CONTROLLER NOT FIT TO HOLD POSITION.” The view that the broadcast on Sunday evening from the commercial radio station had proved that the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting, ' Mr Scrimgeour, was not fit to hold his position, was expressed by Mr Forbes (Opposition, Hurunui) in the House of Representatives yesterday when he moved his motion for the adjournment of the House to enable members to discuss the question. The reasons given in the motion were that the House should have an opportunity for discussing the misuse and abuse of the broadcasting service, and Mr Scrimgeour’s broadcast in particular. Mr Forbes said he was moving the motion for the adjournment in the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon A. Hamilton, and personally he regretted the necessity of taking such a step in regard to the actions of a public servant. The Opposition had no personal feeling against Mr Scrimgeour, but it was strongly held that the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting had been guilty of a distinct breach of the privileges and duties of a public servant. Mr Forbes said he had received many complaints from people who were not associated with politics, but who were astonished that such a speech could be put over the air. Exception was taken not only to the matter of the speech, but also to the language used, which was most unseemly for an officer in a responsible position. Anyone in charge of a broadcasting service had to be doubly careful to discharge his duties with the utmost impartiality, but when one found that a public servant was making use of a State service to call someone outside “an unmitigated and malicious liar,” the position demanded instant action.

REFERENCES RESENTED. Mr Scrimgeour’s reference had been to a man named Mr Justin Power, Mr Forbes said. Mr Power had apparently advocated the. setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate commercial broadcasting, which he had described as the greatest “racket” in the world, with_ political propaganda disguised as a religious service. When Mr Power’s charge was made it was no defence for Mr Scrimgeour to say: “You and the gang who employ you are unmitigated and malicious liars.” “That reference was to the party of which the Hon Mr Hamilton is leader,” continued Mr Forbes. “I am not here to defend Mr Justin Power or anyone else, but I say that the remarks were a reflection on men who have not used any language of that description. They refer to men who are on the executive of the National Party and that represents a quite unwarranted attack on decent people. Coming from a public servant, such statements do not show that impartiality or conception of duty which we are entitled to expect.” CHANGE IN CONTROL NEEDED. “The question of broadcasting is one that raises many problems,” said Mr Forbes, “and that question will have to be faced. Over the air it is possible to do grave hurt to a person without bringing the statement under the law of libel. It is of the very greatest importance that the man who is placed in charge of the department should be fully responsible. Whether this gentleman is allowed to continue in charge or not, the Prime Minister must admit that some change in control is needed. This broadcasting will be used to a greater degree as we come nearer to the election. There are a great many people who feel that the air is not the place for party politics, and I agree. “I hope the Prime Minister will realise as head of the Broadcasting Service that we are quite justified in bringing this matter up, as it is a matter of first public importance. The spirit and traditions of our Parliamentary system should be maintained. This broadcast was a gross breach of that tradition.”

PREMIER IN REPLY.

KEEPING BROADCASTING FREE FROM POLITICS. “I am not defending what happened on Sunday night. I will just say that it was a very human action,” said the Prime Minister, who is also Minister of Broadcasting, when he spoke in reply. Mr Savage said the Government had tried to keep broadcasting as free from political colour as possible, but it was a very difficult task.

“I am not satisfied that we should have politics over the air in any way,” the . Prime Minister said. “Not so long ago I had the managers of all the stations in my room following a previous broadcast which caused some discussion, and I told them they could discuss the Sermon on the Mount or any other principle, but that if they thought they were helping the Government by making certain statements they were doing the opposite.

“We don’t want that sort of thing. We can look after ourselves in a fair fight, although we do not anticipate that it will be a fair fight. I have sat in ’this House for 20 years listening to hard things that have been said about heads of departments, but their tongues were tied. The time came, however, when we struck an individual who would not take it lying, down. I am not defending him, but I am just one human being talking about another human being, and it is a case where we might have more charity toward our brother. Here is a set of circumstances concerning one of my best friends. He is a personal friend of mine.” “NOT GOING TO APOLOGISE.” Mr W. J. Polson (Opposition, Stratford) : “You should be grateful to him.” Mr Savage: “And I am not going to' apologise to the member for Stratford.” The Prime Minister said the station managers had agreed that the attitude he suggested was the best one to take up, but when Mr Scrimgeour came back from his holiday he found that during his absence questions had been asked in the House about his expenses,and innuendoes had been cast typical of the attitude some members of the House seemed to take to - all public servants. Mr Forbes had asked why the Minister had not defended the Controller of Commercial Broadcasting, but was, it not the duty of the critic to attack the Minister rather than the officer? There had been times when Mr Scrimgeour had sat in the galleries of the House listening to members of the Opposition condemning everything that was near and dear to him. Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opposition, Central Otago): “Talk sense!!” “The members of the Opposition don’t like that,” Mr Savage went on. “Mr Scrimgeour’s resignation was in the hands of the Acting-Minister of Broadcasting, the Hon F, Jones, before that lecture was given, and although I do not defend his action, it was, in the circumstances, a very human thing to do. Perhaps even the members on the Opposition benches may sin sometimes.” In further passages of his address, Mr Savage said he was not apologising for anyone. “If a controller of a station runs amok at times that is to be deplored, even if one is able to understand a man’s feelings under the lash,” he added. “I know I could not do the job of the individual concerned as well as he has done it; I would have kicked over the traces long ago. This gentleman is not able to appear on the public platform, nor is he able to speak through the newspapers or over the air—his tongue and hands are tied, and yet the Opposition talks about the unfairness of the attack made.” The broadcasting service, the Premier observed in concluding, was the most difficult department to run from an administrative point of view, because so much depended on the people speaking over the air. The Government could not go bail for everyone who got before the microphone. People talked about the freedom of the air, but what would be the state of affairs if everyone was allowed to go on the air and say what they liked about anyone else? The debate had not concluded at the end of the afternoon sitting, and when the House met in the evening the discussion of the Financial Statement was resumed.