Telephone costs criticised

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32736, 13 October 1971, Page 18

Telephone costs criticised

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 12. Telephone rentals had been increased twice this year without Parliament having an opportunity to discuss the increases, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Watt) said in Parliament today.

He was seeking leave to introduce his private members’ bill, the Post Office Amendment Bill, which would mean that regulations increasing telephone rentals and television licence fees could not .come into force until they had been considered by the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament and had been approved by resolution of Parliament. Mr Watt said that before the rentals and fees were increased, the House should have the right to debate them and the Statutes Revision Committee should have the right to examine and call evidence to see if they were justified.

The telephone rental increases this year had been made in the face of stated Government policy to hold costs, he said, it was up to Parliament to decide whether the increase was justified. The Post Office made considerable losses last year. This did not indicate efficient administration.

The increases bore hardest on those who could least afford them—those on fixed incomes, superannuitants, and aged beneficiaries. It was time to recognise that a telephone was essential for senior citizens, he said.

The Postmaster-General (Mr McCready) said the first increase this year was in fact made last year but was held because of the stabilisation measures. He said there had been a large wage increase. There was no need for the bill, he said. Regulations increasing charges were gazetted and this had been done by both Labour and National Governments. The Minister of Broadcasting (Mr Walker) said the increases were fully discussed at the Public Expenditure Committee at which a full and satisfactory explanation was given. The Labour speakers had not said how the wage increases of slBm should be paid. “IMPOSITION” The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said that even $l3 was an imposition, and he suggested that, for the elderly, the new rate should be cut by 50 per cent, to $lO. A survey by the Opposition in Wellington and Christchurch, he said, had shown that the average elderly person made three telephone calls a day. With rentals increased to $61.28 a year, this meant a cost of 17c per day, or 5.7 c per call. A study of a Wellington firm had shown it made an average of 60 calls a day, and with rental increased to $22.45 each two months, this was a daily rental of 41c, ot 0.6 c per call. As the firm could claim the whole of telephone rentals as a tax deduction, and paid company tax at 50 per cent, this meant an effective cost of 0.3 c per call, or 17 times what was paid by the elderly person. This was a mean trick to play, he said, and meant that the elderly were subsidising businessmen.