TELEPHONE CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 29, 3 August 1923, Page 7

TELEPHONE CHARGES

ERQXEST AGAINST IN-

CREASE

BUT, MAJORITY OF HOUSE

•APPROVES

QUESTION- 'ABOUT A VOTE.

The readjustment of telephone charges was xaißed in the House 6f Representatives last night, when the Xeader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford) moved, that the Post and tele£risp\ Depart-, menfs vote be reduced b"y '£20. as an indication tha.t the telephone charge* should not be increased.

Sir. Wilfgrd said 'he wanted to knoW; ■why £75,000 per quarter 'from toll should be credited to telegraphs. The Postmaster-Geiier'al (the Hon. J. G. Coated) stated that it was Sir Joseph Ward who had instituted, the (system in New Zealand.

, T ¥\ W. A. Veitch fWahganiii): "Si* Joseph Ward aid not put the extr* charge on to the telephones." : MINISTER'S EXPLANATION. Mr. Coates $aid that every country in the world credited toll 'revenue to tele--g^P, hs» because telephone lines weredirect competitors with the telegraph lines. If Parliament did not agree with the revised charges it would be very awkward for the Department, for year, by year the. position . •would become worse, and that would necessitate the introduction of tile measured rate system ihey must have either that or the flat rate. They would not be justified in borrowing money for telephone development ■unless. enough was earned to pay interest. . Regarding the question of charges, lie did not think it right that the ordinary taxpayer should pay for aservice which was availed of by~flthersinere were workingmen who did not want telephones, but who paid indirectly to the cost of the telephone service. : Quoting the saying: -"Never look for a; far-fetched explanation rof a simple fact,'' Mr. Wilford interpreted the matter in the words: ."We had to do it, so we collared the telephone revenue.'' A certain Prime Minister had stated on one occasion that he was going to "reduce the postal revenue. He knew that it meant a reduction in postal rates. It really,, meant a premium or gift .to 'the.-large' firms which posted thousands, of letters a year, and nothing to the individual. The loss had to be made up, eb £280,----000 a yeai was taken from the -fcolf charges. "It strikes me," said Mr. Wilford, "that this has been the/ me-; thod used for making up for the -reduc-.' tion in the postage rates, and it migh£as well be admitted. It is like a de-: partmental grappling iron thrown out to see what it can catch. It has been.a great surprise to everybody who' reads the "Gazette" figures to find that the revenue from toll communications comes to no less than £75,000 per quarter, and that there has been no loss on telegrams at all."

The Minister, referring to last year's balance-sheet i 6aid there was a loss on telegrams of £546,000; on telephones/ £73,528; and on wireless, £10,421—a . total loss of £420,909. . " "■.".••' Mr. R. Masters (Stratford) remark-, ed that it was evident that the 'tele-" phone Department was carrying a very' heavy load of the Telegraph Department's work, and it made; one wonder why the telegram rates had. been reduced. The figures quoted by the Mm- ■■■ ister meant. that over half a million pounds a year were being lost on the telegraph lines. "In view of that fact;' 1 he stated, "I would like to ask the Minister why he decreased the telegram rates recently." The Minister: "Because we increasa our revenue thereby." Mr. Masters characterised the ■principle as unfair and unjust. The amendment was reported as being defeated by 31 votes to 30. THE VOTE QUESTIONED 1. .;. . At a later stage, Mr. W. S. Glenn (Rangitikei) stated that a mistake had occurred in the counting of the division list. The "Noes" should really have been 32. ' The Chairman of the Committee (Mr. J. A. Young) said that the mistake had been noted. . ■ - The teller for the "Noes," Mr. S. G. Smith (Taranaki), then raised the question of the accuracy o£ the count. It appeared, he said, that an alteration had been made in the division list. Mr. Massey said the statement was serious. The thing would have Jo be thrashed out. Mr. Smith said he meant to cast no reflections on anybody. .. • . The name of Mr. Witty cropped f lipi '■'" and he was asked where he was when a previous division was taken. • He stated that he was absent from the House at the time. "I have jusfe as much light to be away as other mem-, hers," he said. "Some are away for a week. lam not ashamed of my vote! 1' There came a discussion as to what sort of pencils were used in marking the division -papers. Mr. J. S. Pick- * son (Parnell) stated that he had not used any pencil. Mr. Glenn had done the , marking. Various suggestions were made as to what should be done with the division .. list. A Labour member' proposed that " the list should be sent "to the Arbitra- -•■ tion Court" to elucidate the problem that had arisen. (Laughter.) Mr.: Holr.l.'. land urged that a Sherlock Holmes ■ j should be summoned. After further discussion, the Chairman. suggested that Mr. Smith should agree that both he and Mr. Glenn had madea mistake. At first Mr. Smith was not inclined to do this, but eventually he agreed, and the incident closed. The chairman said there was no doubt that the list had been wrongly counted, and that th« I "Noes" should be 32 instead of 31 „' .'