The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1960. Television Receivers

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29293, 26 August 1960, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1960. Television Receivers

Since the four-sided discussion among Mr J. K. Dobson (president of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association), Professor B. P. Philpott (of Canterbury Agricultural College), Mr H. E. Radley (of the Canterbury Progress League), and “The Press” has become a little tangled, it may be as well to unravel it. The controversy really began when we asked if television manufacturers were to be completely protected by import control and why, particularly since New Zealand did not appear to have resources to spare for this industry. This article (printed on July 13) did not draw Mr Dobson’s fire; but a fortnight later he entered the discussion by criticising an article dealing with protection generally. The article mentioned television only in passing; and so did Mr Dobson in his comments. The discussion lapsed after Professor Philpott had assured Mr Dobson that “ the assumptions under- “ lying the leading article ” were quite correct. When Mr Radley mentioned the first article with approval at a Progress League meeting, Mr Dobson returned to the

argument, this time apparently, to defend the prices charged by New Zealand manufacturers. Incidentally, we had not criticised the prices, because we assumed that if- New Zealand factories could make sets cheaper they would. The example Mr Dobson gave seemed to show, that tariff protection was all that the New Zealand industry needed, which was exactly the- point of our second article. More information about prices, now quoted by Mr Radley, shows, on the other hand, that even a tariff that more than doubles the price of an imported set may not be sufficient to protect the New Zealand television industry. These figures are from reliable sources. If they are correct, the first part of our original question is answered. No-one has yet explained, however, why it is necessary for New Zealand to devote scanty resources to this particular industry at the expense of both the Government’s revenue and the citizen’s purse. We still support the view of the industrial development conference that in normal circumstances protection should be by tariff.