PRODUCE DUES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 143, 2 June 1936, Page 9

PRODUCE DUES

Harbour Boards Fear Loss of Revenue NEW MARKETING BILL by Telegraph—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH, June 1. Fears that the passing of the Primary Products Marketing Bill, whereby all butter and cheese from New Zealand will be exported as the property of the Crown, may involve harbour boards in considerable loss of revenue were expressed by Mr E. J. Howard, M.P., retiring chairman of tho Lyttelton Harbour Board, at a meeting of the board to-day. Mr Howard emphasised that under the legislation already on the Statute Book all Crown goods were exempt from the payment of harbour dues, and if tho Bill became law in its present form it would be possible iu some circumstances for the Government Audit Office to plead this exemption in relation to dairy produce.

Mr Howard was not altogether reassured by statements by the Minister of Finance, tbe Hon. W. Nash, to the Harbours Association that harbour boards would not suffer through the passing of the Bill. The danger, he said, was not so much in the geueral provisions of the Bill, which made dairy produce Crown property wheu it was placed on board ship for export, for in that case the dues would already have been paid before the Crown took over. There was a proviso, however, that the Minister might deem produce to bo Crown property at any stage before shipment, and it was in such eases that harbour boards were likely to be affected.

A letter from Mr Nash to the Harbours Association dated May 14 stated that it was definitely the intentiou of the Government that harbour boards should not suffer through the passing of the Primary Products Marketing Bill. So long as the Government continued to acquire the title to dairy produce at f.o.b. point wharfage and other harbour dues were payable by factories as at present, even if the title to the goods were taken at an earlier point. Having regard to the provisions of section 78 of the Harbours Act it was clear that tho position of harbour boards would not be prejudiced, as in that ease harbour dues would be payable by the State.

Mr Nash’s letter continued to say that ho had obtained au opinion from the Crown Law Office on tho mutter, and he was assured that no further legislation was required to prevent harbour boards from suffering los's by the passing of the Bill. This ruling was binding on departments of State, so that in any case where dues were payable by the Crown there would be no difficulty about their payment.

“I know that the intention of the Minister is as stated in the letter,” said Mr Howard. “He has promised legislation if it affects us; yet the Crown Law Office opinion is not binding, us has been proved in the past. The Audit Office, which has to act on the legislation as it stands, is the one that counts. The Harbours Association is watching the position closely.”