LIBEL ACTION Consumer Council Head Insists Heaters “Faulty”

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30288, 14 November 1963, Page 18

LIBEL ACTION Consumer Council Head Insists Heaters “Faulty”

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 13. Questioned about allegations that the Consumer Council habitually misled the public, the council’s chairman, George Ernest Francis Wood, a retired Government Statistician, told the Supreme Court in Wellington today that this was emphatically not the policy of the council. “The principal object is to protect and promote the interests of goods and services,” he said. The Court is hearing a claim for £16,500 damages byTurnbull and Jones, Ltd., for libel alleged to have been committed by the Consumer Council in an article in the magazine, “Consumer,” reporting on tests on four heaters made by the company.

The hearing, expected to take a week, is before Mr Justice McGregor. Also a defendant Is Allan Edward Monaghan, a public servant, as editor of the magazine. The company is represented by Mr R. E. Harding, with him Mr B. R. Boon. Appearing for the defendants is Mr G. P. Barton, with him Mr R. T. Feist. The statement of claim says the article complained of said, among other things, that the company was manufacturing and selling heaters that were dangerous to life and property and that the company had committed offences against the Electrical Wiring Regulations, 1961. Mr Wood said the council sat every two months. There were executive, testing and editorial committees. Requests from members to test articles were considered and the executive officer then drew up a suggested testing programme. This was considered by the testing committee. and then the programme, with priorities, was drawn up. This in turn would be considered by the council, and the council itself would make the actual decision to test a particular article. The decision to test heaters was taken on May 15, 1961. Council’s Aims Questioned by Mr Barton about the function of the council. Wood said it did encourage producers of goods to improve their goods. This was a good thing for industry and commerce generally. Wood said the activities of the council were not confined to testing and reporting. It also made representation to various committees where matters of interest to consumers were being discussed. Representations were made to the Bills Committee on the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, 1962, and evidence was given to the Parliamentary committee of inquiry into wheat, flour and. breadmaking.

Wood said that the tests on electric heaters were carried out by a Mr Harland, under the supervision of Monaghan, the executive officer, who was responsible for the supervision and control of all tests. Mr Barton: Do you have any personal interest in any of the firms whose products were tested? Wood: No. Do you have any grudge against Turnbull and Jones, Ltd., or any director or executive of that company?—No. What is the policy of the council with regard to referring to manufacturers the findings of tests?—We send a report to each manufacturer of the laboratory test on his own produet. Wood said the article draft was done by Harland and then Monaghan revised it. The article was then submitted to the testing committee and finally the editorial committee. Wood said both Monaghan and Harland were “absolutely first-class people.” Mr Barton: You know it is alleged that the principal object of the Consumer Council is to keep up and increase the sales of the magazine. Is that the principal object of the Consumer Council? Wood: No. The principal object is to protect and promote the interests of goods and services. What is the policy of the Consumer Council on accuracy?—We try to be as accurate as we can possibly be. Was it known to you that the words complained of in “Consumer 10” were false?— No. Wood said they liked the articles to be as readable as possible, consistent always with factual accuracy and moderation of statements. “If errors are made they are acknowledged." Told by Mr Barton that it had been alleged during the hearing that the magazine pandered to the lower tastes

of readers, Wood said the magazine was “couched in quite austere language.” Standards Mark Cross-examined by Mr Harding, Wood agreed that the council had published in the magazine that a square fan heater was hazardous. He also agreed the council knew before it tested one sample of the heater in question that the heater had a standards licence. Mr Harding: Do you assert that this is a hazardous type of heater? Wood: Yes. Then the Standards Institute is mistaken in continuing the licence? —Not necessarily. They issue a licence to manufacturers and I understand a sample is tested. It is possible to get the standard mark and through some fault in the assembly and something happening, some individual specimens may live up to that standard. Do you say that the Standards Institute made a mistake in granting that licence? —lf the sample tested was similar to our purchase of this type of heater, there was a mistake. Asked whether it was possible to escape the conclusion that the council was “damning this heater generally as a heater," Wood said there was that implication. Mr Harding: And you agree that, in fact, the heater is not of a hazardous type? Wood: Yes.

Do you agree that in your article you say it is a hazardous type?— We grouped it under the heading “hazardous.” And it is not of a hazardous type?—The specimen we got was hazardous. Wood agreed that “Consumer” had contained individual assessments of the Turnbull and Jones’ heaters. If he found some of the statements were inaccurate and unfavourable to the company he would wish to express regret for that. Mr Harding: But you don’t feel any regret for having said that the heater ought to be withdrawn from sale?— No. The hearing will continue tomorrow.