BILL OPPOSED IN PRESENT FORM

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30880, 13 October 1965, Page 10

BILL OPPOSED IN PRESENT FORM

Mr N. E. Roseman, an Auckland weekly newspaper owner, appeared on behalf of six newspaper owners publishing 10 weekly newspapers.

He said his submissions were also supported by a daily, the “Thames Star,” and he had received 18 telegrams since the submissions were prepared, making 30 newspapers, nine being members of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, supporting them.

“These newspapers object to the bill in its present form, as one which sets out to achieve protection of a few mighty dailies at the expense of every newspaper shareholder in New Zealand, that of limitation of his ownership and his rights of disposal of his own property as he sees fit. “We propose that the bill be discontinued in its present form: that the principle of free enterprise competition be maintained but that Parliament keep a careful watch against unfair competition among newspapers whether owned locally or overseas.

“Although the parties 1 represent are indeed small owners in their own right, they nonetheless are beneficial owners publishing a combined circulation of 418,000 weekly,” said Mr Roseman. “As such, their views and rights could be said to be as important as and should be considered on a par with the more mighty dailies.” Disinheritance He submitted that the bill would disinherit New Zealand citizens as in the case of the

“Thames Star.” In the natural course of events the daughter of the owners would own the newspaper. In a month she would marry a Seattle lawyer and live in the United States. She would be forced under the bill to sell all but 15 per cent of her inheritance “when fortune again smiles on Thames and its population increases its newspaper circulation beyond 5000.” Mr Roseman said the bill too harshly restricted the rights of many individuals in the name of “public interest” to protect the business interests of a few newspapers. “Newspapers have no right to claim more protection for their business interests than any other type of business,” Mr Roseman said. “Newspapers do combine two functions, one as business units, the other of news dissemination.

“We believe it is the possibility of misuse of this latter function only that should exercise Parliament. We submit that these aims can be achieved without need to restrict owners’ rights to deal with their shares.” Mr Roseman said.

“We do not agree that it would be against the public interest to allow limited overseas ownership of a New Zealand newspaper. Limitations could be imposed to prevent undue competition with existing newspapers, but any limitation should apply equally to any large New Zealand owners.

“If it is valid argument to limit competition for the large dailies’ benefit on the grounds of the strength of the possible competitor, is it not as valid an argument to limit competition for the

small independent newspapers of a city from competition of relative strength, whether overseas or locally based? “It is timely that Parliament should look to the giant which is among us. One which now owns 13 newspapers—four dailies and nine weeklies. A monopoly interest well on its way to engulfing the whole of Auckland’s independently owned newspapers. . . .

“We neither expect nor ask for any greater protection than any other industry or business should have. “Were it not for the emergence of this bill with its protective aims, we would have continued to meet competition without approach to Parliament,” said Mr Roseman. Nine Weeklies He said New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd., had in the last few years taken over nine suburban weeklies. “Auckland's independent newspaper owners did not have the Government rushing to protect them from this competition, and have not expected that it should. Neither should the Government be concerned with protecting the major newspapers. “If Parliament decides that protection is necessary, then external and internal protection must apply to all newspapers, not a select few,” Mr Roseman submitted. Mr Mason asked Mr Roseman if the internal monopoly was a greater danger at present than a possible external monopoly.

Mr Roseman said this was very much so.