Newspapers discharged

Press, 26 November 1981, Page 4

Newspapers discharged

PA Auckland Two newspaper companies have been discharged without conviction on one charge each of refusing to supply particulars required by the Statistics Department. In a decision given by Judge Kerr in the District Court at Auckland, two further similar informations against Wilson and Horton, Ltd, and one against New Zealand Newspapers, Ltd, were dismissed. The charges had been laid in the alternative and had been denied by the defendant companies. On the charge on which they were discharged without conviction, the Judge ordered each company to pay a solicitor’s fee of $lOO with court costs of $2O and further expenses still to be ascertained.

Judge Kerr said he found the refusal by both companies to supply some of the information required by the Statistics Department in a schedule sent to them was intentional. The schedule was, however, to some extent misleading as there was a suggestion that all information provided would be kept secret.

The department failed to

bring to the attention of the companies that secrecy could be possibly waived. Judge Kerr said it seemed to him that the department was entitled to publish information it received even though secrecy might not possibly be achieved in doing so. From, the evidence before him, it seemed quite clear that the reason for the schedule was to enable the Government to obtain particulars of salaries and other employment conditions prevailing in newspapers for negotiations with its own employees in television, radio, and the “Listener.”

The defendant companies were worried that so far as their senior employees, such as editors, were concerned, information provided about them could become public and in particular might become available to members of trade unions who might then use something to which they would not normally have access.

Judge Kerr said that it was not for him to say whether the unions should be entitled to such information, but it seemed to him that it could put employers such as

the defendant companies at something of a disadvantage. He was prepared to accept that both companies refused to supply some of the particulars requested as they believed there should be an absolute . guarantee of secrecy.

The Statistics Act, 1975, however did not require absolute secrecy.

The companies also believed as a principle that an employer was entitled to negotiate privately with certain members of its staff.