Broadcasting Amendment Bill

Radio Record, Volume VIII, Issue 36, 15 March 1935, Page 6

Broadcasting Amendment Bill

eter ibers Look Closely into New Zealand "e Radio Programmes

During last weeka considerable amount of discussion took place in the House of Representatives’ concerning the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. The following are views expressed. by some’ of thé Members i in vefetencé td thie. Bill. An outline of the Government’s broadcasting _ policy ° was given by the Postthaster-General, Hon. A.’ Hamilton, when moving the second réading.of the Bill in the House of Representatives.

. Hamilton: stated that during the years the present board had been in existence an endeavour had been made to lay the" foundations of a policy. The board had teally blazed the trail, Both it and the:advisory council had done good work. It. .was proposed now to abolish the’ advisory council. The policy they proposed to adopt was mainly on the lines of the B.B.C2s policy, which was generally recognised as’‘the ‘best in the world. The American and Australian systems were not to be compared with it. In Great Britain the only revenue rec :ived by the corporation was from listeners’ fees. In that sense they were endeavouring to follow the B.B.C. policy, rather than the American and Australian systems, under . which maintenance depended upon advertising, and revenue’from othér services. In the speake?’s opinion, those countries would be glad :to revert to the British system. if they could. He understood ,that there was a desire in some quarters ‘that the personnel of the board as proposed in the Bill should be reduced: from: seven. to five, but it was necessary that there should be wide representation, and he considered the appointment of seven membery would satisfy that need. Mr. B. J. Howard "(Lab., Christchurch South)’. suggested. that: the. Bill would mean the end of the B stations. _ He considered. the Governmént was following Wngland too slavishly. _ A weakness of the Bill was that there was no provision for the election of members of the board. There should be one board for the North Island and another for the South Island, as the problems of’ the two islands ‘were totally different. . Mr. R.. A. Wright. (Ind., Wellington Suburbs) criticised the proposal tha’ the board should be composed of seven members. He considered that a great deal of money would be taken up by their: travelling expenses, .and‘it, was almost certain that they would be men with two or three other jobs. In his opinion, ‘the personnel of the board should‘ be: reduced from seven. members to three-one-who understood the technical: side:of broadcasting, one who was qualified or who could become qualified in selecting suitable entertainment for the radio, and a third who-would be a direct representative of the listeners. The ‘money thus saved, he: suggested, should be used to encourage local talent, which at present was more discouraged than .otherwise. He believed that in a recent. poll,, 95. per cent, of.-the listeners

plumped for the B stations. If that was true, surely -the ,B:stations were entitled to consideration, . bit the Bill simply gave a monopoly to YA stations. Mr, A. 8. Richards (Lab.. Roskill) also urged for direct representation on the . board for ,listeners.... He knew . that, if listeners did: not’ get what they wanted from the Minister, they ‘would bring to bear all the means in their power to achieve their object. Mx. Richards interpreted the Bill as being the beginning of the end of B stations. The B stations were popular with the public, which feared’ that the standard of programmes would deteriorate if the .B stations disappeared. ae . Mr. W. A. Veitch (Ind., Wanganui) considered that broadcasting should .-ot be a monopoly. If broadcasting was left. to a few stations, listeners would not receive. the programmes they desired to listen to. The minor stations would give listeners .a greater choice of programme. In his opinion, as the chairman of the board received £650 a year, he should give all his time to the position, There were very many «competent men who would be ver glad to ‘take such'a job at the ‘money. .-- Mr. J, A. Nash (Govt, Palmerston) considered that no matter what action might be taken’ by the: new board, uuless more sympathetic treatment was accorded the B stations, there would be a storm of protest from one end of the country to the other, The enlarging of the board from three to seven members would be a distinct’ advantage, but much would depend upon the men appointed. He considered it was only reasonable that, the listeners who provided the revenue should be given some representation. If they had at least one representatiye on the board they would feel they had an interest in the concern Rev. ‘O. L. Carr (Lab., Timaru) suggested that the control of broadeasting might well be dealt with’ by a committee of the House-men who.had been elected to deal ‘with..matters of that kind-and considered , that: this’ was especially necessary, when regard was taken of the enormous increase in the number of ' Tisteners in New Zealand: during the past few years, Nearly everybody had a wireless set now, and he hoped the time would soon com’ when everyone would be able ' to take advantage of the benefits broadeasting offered. Mr. Carr stated that he would: vather listen to the American or

Australian stations than to.any of th& YA stations. He stated that all personality, variety and charm had been. cut out of the YA stations, and that they were the most soulless he had come in contact with. Mr. R. McKeen (Lab, Wellington South) stated that had the New Zealand Broadcasting Board adopted the same attitude as the B.B.C, it would have allowed broadcasts by such people as Krishnamurti, Professor A. Sewell and Mr. H. D. Dickinson. The "Friendly Road" was an undenominational body, and it -bad vendered valuable service in the Auckland province. That B station should be allowed the freedom it had to-day, but undey the Bill it was to be wiped out. The board would have absolute control, and would be responsible to no one. In his opinion that was wrong. Mr. BH. T. Tirikatene (ind., Southern Maori) and Mr, H. Holland (Govt. Christchurch) hoped that nothing wou'ld be done to curtail the activities of the B stations. ' Mr. -A. E.. Ansell. (Govt., Chalmers) ‘was satisfied that if the publie was to receive high-grade programmes the B stations. were necessary. He also advocated the encouragement of local talent. He expressed the opinion that the removal of the advisory council would definitely break the link between the board and: the listeners, -Mr. M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) considered that the Government should never unload its responsibility on to any board that was not directly responsible to the people. The Government should’ be prepared to accept the responsibility of laying down a definite broadcasting policy, and have it administere without fear or favour. Nothing shou -be done of a harsh nature that + would have the effect of closing stations that were giving a satisfactory and useful service. Seeing that the listeners provided all the revenue it seemed reasonable that they should have representation on the board. It might be that the radio trade should also have some representation. The broadcasting service should be part and parcel of the Post and Telegraph Department. An Auckland deputation waited upon the, Minister at Parliament House on Friday afternoon; and expressed the view that the Government was using the Bill to obliterate the B stations. The deputation was from the United Listeners’ Club, Auckland. It sought direct representation for listeners on the board,. .The sugges-\ tion was that there should be two mem bers, one for each island. f The Minister considered ‘the deputal tion’s request to be reasonable. However, he did not think it wise to have an elective board, but he would do his best to See that the listeners had representation.