Freezing company secrecy rejected

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33381, 13 November 1973, Page 3

Freezing company secrecy rejected

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, November 12.

There was no good reason why freezing companies in New Zealand should continue to be allowed exemption from disclosing information concerning their taxes and other business accounts, said the Deputy Registrar of Companies (Mr A. Dibley) today.

Speaking to the Commission of Inquiry into the Meat Industry, Mr Dibley said that the exemptions, under the Companies Accounts (Freezing Works Companies) Exemption Order, 1956, had outlived whatever validity they had and should be withdrawn.

The exemptions were granted in 1956 after the freezing companies submitted that disclosure of tax payable would endanger the setting aside of adequate reserves to provide for modernisation of the industry and to cope with increased production. The companies had said it would place New Zealand firms at a disadvantage with rival overseas firms trading in this country, and would also place them under strong pressures from people outside its shareholders, such as farmers wanting higher payments and workers wanting higher wages.

Mr Dibley said it could no longer be argued that New Zealand companies were at a disadvantage compared with the five overseas companies working in New Zealand. LAW CHANGED •“Changes in the law relating to taxation have reduced the significance of the provision for taxation to a point where its disclosure will not be terribly informative, any way,” he said. Whatever the problems of the freezing industry in relation to its employees or suppliers, continuation of the

exemption would be unlikely to help their solution. They could work the other way and create an aura of suspicion or distrust between the companies and those they negotiated with. “It has been argued that the freezing industry needs the protection afforded by the exemption order so that it can remain viable and can modernise its plants and equipment to meet new stan-

dards of hygiene and efficiency. “We cannot see how con-; tinuation of the exemption! order is essential to those; ends.” Freezing companies could > ibe regarded as “something' of a historical curiosity” in still being able to work under the old rules which did not apply to companies active in other fields, said ; Mr Dibley.