Officials reject claim of bungling film deal

Press, 12 February 1979, Page 5

Officials reject claim of bungling film deal

Wellington reporter Suggestions that bureaucratic regulations and lack : Gf co-operation have discouraged efforts to make i large sections of a film i about the Bounty mutiny in New Zealand have been rejected by two Government departments concerned. ; 1 The Customs Department i and the Department of Trade* and Industry have both ex-1 pressed the intention of 1 being 'realistic and helpful” I towards any proposals made j, to them. At a meeting with repre-i sentatives of several Gov- H ernment departments in! Wellington, the film’s pro-|, ducer. David Lean. was , advised of the systems under which any imported equipment used to make the ■' film would have to be; 1 brought in. There will be no problem and no costs .involved in se- 1 curing import licences for j ; the equipment, according * I to the Department of Trade; and Industry. If the good were subject i to an import licence, which was not at all certain, a li- : cence would be issued for specific items at their time of arrival subject to provision for their later re-export, i it said.

Asked what its attitude would be if the film’s producers sought to import items already here, such as cartage trucks, the department said it would be far cheaper to use materials here than ship them at great expense from thousands of miles away, particularly in the case of a bulky item such as a truck. A more complex situation : exists with duty and sales j tax payable to the Customs t Department. : Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1966, makes proj vision for the temporary import of goods into New Zealand. | The Customs Department 'would expect such goods to be re-exported within 12 months, although it has the I authority to extend this • period. j Usually a surety, bond, or cash deposit would be required to ensure re-export, I said the director of the department’s Tariff Division (Mr W. I. Wood). ' However, there was international convention, to which New Zealand was a signatory on the temporary importation of professional equipment. This convention would probably cover most of the equipment Mr Lean was considering importing

1I and no duty or sales tax ■lwould be payable. It is possible that some of ; the equipment may be of a I type that is free of duty any- > way, although the Customs 1 Department would still rei quire a surety of re-export. , No formal tables on the i exact amount of depreciation exist. The amounts would be , settled on individual items ■ by the Collector of Customs jat the point Of entry, with [expert advice. “Mr Lean was unable to 'j tell us with any accuracy ; what equipment 1 would be I involved, its age,' its value or its history,” said Mr . I Wood.. 'I “He asked that deprecia- ' tion be waived, or at least ; I reduced, but we were unable :I to make any commitment ' * until we know what is involved. ' i “If and when we know ■lwhat items are involved, we • I can apply the regulations. Mr Lean wanted us to conjure a cost out of the air but we couldn’t give a hypothetical figure when the equipment i involved might range in i; value from $lOO,OOO to S3M.” 1 Mr Wood said the Cusi toms Department wanted to : be “realistic and helpful” as i soon as it knew the items it ; was dealing with.