TV Policy Criticised By A.N.Z. Bank Journal

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29330, 8 October 1960, Page 11

TV Policy Criticised By A.N.Z. Bank Journal

“Because television will be costly for New Zealand, the Government is limitlrfg the cost by various controls on the pace and extent of development, but at the expense of depriving the community of the full service to which it should be entitled,” says A.N.Z. Bank’s “Quarterly Survey.” “There is a strong case to establish a full-scale television service in New Zealand,” says the bank, “but New Zealand has some unique disadvantages which make television relatively costly.” Discussing the official . policy on television, the bank goes on to point out that: “Some maip effects of the Government policy, are to concentrate capital costs of establishment on the Government itself, to restrict the appeal to advertisers by limiting the audience and thus to restrict revenue from that source. “This means that licence fees and sales tax are the major offset for Government expenditure, and these will also be restricted for some years by the import quotas and the limited coverage by a few low-powered transmitters. Small Scale

“Furthermore, the small scale of the manufacturing industry and attempts to establish local manufacture of more components as soon as possible will mean high costs of production per unit.

“A very different picture would emerge,” says the bank, "if the Government had taken a different policy line, allowing private enterprise to enter the industry and offering licences for an additional channel in the main centres if such were sought.” In such circumstances, the article points out that: “The Government's licence and sales tax revenue would be augmented without any extra costs and advertising revenue might be raised because the larger . audience would justify higher rates. “If New Zealanders are fully employed and earning high incomes, why should they be denied the right to choose the way they spend their incomes in a tree market?

“The Government may tax such pleasures, and limit the overall level of activity and the amount of credit available, but further interference infringes the citizen's economic rights,” the journal adds.