BOARD DIVIDED ON MILK ROUND ISSUE

Taupo Times, Volume XIV, Issue 56, 20 July 1965, Page 6

BOARD DIVIDED ON MILK ROUND ISSUE

Unusual points arose at the annual meeting of the South East Waikato Milk Board at Tirau on Tuesday when an application made on behalf of a Tokoroa milk vendor, Mr A. H. Peters, was received. It was stated that Mr Peters wished to transfer his milk vendor's licence to his wife so as to adjust revenue for internal taxation purposes.

"This is rather difficult," the chairman, Mr H. J. Spear, of Tokoroa, said. "The normal transfer of assets from husband to wife is not considered as if the assets were passing out of the husband's control. So, in this case, there is no question of the sale of the licence. Theoretically, a married woman is a minor by law, and the husband will still be responsible." "Leave it to the Department of Inland Revenue to look after its own affairs," said Mr R. J. Broadbelt, the district manager of the New Zealand Milk Board at Hamilton. Mr U. R. MacDonald (Taupo County) said that Mrs Peters would become the owner of an asset. Mr Broadbelt: Who would you tackle if the milk de-

livery service failed? "Mrs Peters would be responsible," the board's secretary, Mr W. Ryan, said. "I don't think the case would be any more obscure than if the licence was held by a company," said Mr G. R. Chapman (South Waikato Milk Vendors' Association). Mr MacDonald: We have got rid of companies. We don't want to inherit any more problems. In normal cases the board could take away a licence if a service was not satisfactory, Mr Spear said. "Here, it would depend on whether or not the board interpreted

the transfer as a sale of a licence or not." Mr Spear added that he did not think the service would be affected. Mr Peters would continue with his round. Mr Chapman said that he understood other milk boards transferred licences between relatives. "Some boards won't," Mr Broadbelt said. "The Palmerston North board would not transfer a licence to a widow from a husband's estate." Mr Spear asked the board to decide whether to grant the application or to put the licence up for sale. Mr R. M. Crack (Putaruru Borough Council) asked the board to bear in mind the precedent it could create. "We could be besieged with applications from other vendors, and the board could come in for adverse criticism," he said. Mr MacDonald agreed with Mr Crack. "I believe this matter is a transfer of

a licence, and it is not fair to the people who are on the waiting list to obtain vendors' licences," he said. Mr Chapman said that the transfer of licences to close relatives, with the board's approval, should be automatic. "We like to think that sons and daughters will take over the farms and businesses of their parents," he added. t He would not accept this as a principle for the transfer of milk licences, Mr Crack said. Each application should be treated on its merits. When a motion to grant the application was put to the meeting, Messrs H. W. Tinkler and W. H. G. Allen (Matamata County Council) voted for it, and Messrs MacDonald and Crack voted against. "This leaves me in the in-

vidious position of using my casting vote," Mr Spear said. "I vote for the granting of the application. This is a purely paper transfer and not the physical transfer of the operating of a milk run." The application was granted.