COMPLAINTS ON IMPORT LICENCES FOR MACHINERY

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28822, 17 February 1959, Page 7

COMPLAINTS ON IMPORT LICENCES FOR MACHINERY

Difficulties in obtaining licences to import replacements of worn out and obsolescent plant and the refusal of the Government to allow industry to import plant under non-remittance licences were complained of at last evening’s meeting of the council of the Canterbury Manufacturers’ Association. The council decided to ask the Minister of Customs (Mr Boord) to meet it next month. Each case for a licence for the replacement of plant would be considered on its merits, said a letter from the Secretary of Industries and Commerce (Mr W. B. Sutch). Members laughed at his reply that adequate licences were being issued for replacement parts and spares. were having difficulty over securing licences to import plant. Although Mr Sutch said each case was dealt with on its merits, that did not help the industrialist who was sitting down waiting for a licence. One member wanted plant to bring his total plant into being and he required only a nonremittance licence.

Under the licensing regulations, the local officer could grant a licence up to £5OO for replacement of 1 plant 30 years old, said Mr E. C. Munt. He had applied for a licence for £460 and the application was being shuffled back and forth from Wellington until he was sick of it He had shipped plant to Australia and wanted to spend one quarter of those earnings on replacement of old machinery and' was getting no satisfaction whatever. “Hamstrung” “It is hot to increase output, but to bring die factory up to efficiency,” sad Mr Munt. "The time has come when we caniiot sit down and be hamstrung.” The association was trying to help his company, said Mr F. S. Taylor. His firm had changed its packing form cases to cartons and wanted to import a carton sealing machine. The Government said it was a question of overseas funds. Some firms had overseas funds legitimately obtained and there was no excuse whatever for the Government saying replacements or machines were a drain on overseas funds. The Government had no control over the funds. 9

“I feel we are really getting hamstrung,” said Mr Taylor. "On the other hahd, I understand that companies with overseas associations have been able to get plant

to increase their production. Why should not New Zealand*owned companies be in the same category?” Members: That is the point. ' Vital Machinery Companies which were trying to improve their productive capacity and were in a position to provide for payment without Calling on overseas funds were entitled to more consideration than they were being given, said. Mr Taylor. It was only a question of “hundreds” in some cases, but that amount of machinery could be as vital as £lO,OOO worth. “If individuals can buy motor-cmrg.-on non-remittance licences, yUremnaChin.Mr Taylor: We have licences for raw materials for new products, but not the licences for new machinery to machinery. The implication was that the dice was loaded against New Zealand companies, said Mr W. A. Bascand. Could an overseas company send out plant on lease? Mr Maddren: A licence would still be necessary to land the machinery; but undoubtedly that type of plant is coming into the country. Mr Munt: The Government frowns upon that.

Applications fort licences down to £l5 were being shuttle-cocked between Christchurch and Wellington, said Mr Bascand. The authority given to the local Customs officer did not work out in practice. \ Mr Maddren: What we need is— A member: New Government (laughter). “. . , Discretionary powers on the part of the local officer,” continued Mr Maddren. Several members replied to Mr Bi G.~. Pearce that they had had no, difficulty in obtaining , licences for replacement of parts.