Warning by Mr Kirk

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32819, 20 January 1972, Page 2

Warning by Mr Kirk

Britain’s agreement to accept a proviso about decisions on continuing safeguards for New Zealand’s butter trade after the five-year transition period was a very serious matter for New Zealand, said the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) in Christchurch last evening.

“It throws into question all the blithe assurances that have been offered here, there and everywhere by the negotiators and by the New Zealand Government. This aboutface is rfct the sort of thing that New Zealand traditionalists would normally associate with British concepts of fair play,” he said. “It also raises the question as to whether Mr Rippon’s socalled ‘bankable assurances'

were much more than a smokescreen to soften critics of British entry in the House of Commons, and to allay the proper fears of many proMarket supporters that entry may have a very detrimental effect on New Zealand.” said Mr Kirk. EFFECT ON VOTE It was certain that had the true position been known, some who voted for entry would have voted against it, Mr Kirk said. “It is highly improbable that thoughtful pro-Marketeers would have accepted as satisfactory an arrangement which could be torpedoed by a single vote in the enlarged .Community. “Mr Marshall on July 20, 1971, said that he had opposed the proviso that a unanimous decision would be required by the enlarged Community to permit the continuation of the quantitative guarantees beyond 1977. Mr Marshall said, as a result, the British were able to ensure that this proviso was eliminated from the finally agreed text," said Mr Kirk. Mr Marshall had said it would be a breach of faith for the concept of unanimity to be reintroduced. “This is precisely what the British have now agreed to. It means that any country, for reasons perhaps unrelated to trade, may attempt to bargain for some interest of its own by vetoing any access on guaranteed terms after 1977,” said Mr Kirk. “UNCERTAINTY”

“What this means,” said Mr Kirk, “is that the country with the most butterfat and the strongest resolution to ensure that no principle or aspect of the common agricultural policy will be breached, will set the pace and all other partner countries will have to come down to those terms or have nothing.” Thus all the much-vaunted

Luxemburg agreement amounted to was a certain arrangement for five years, and an uncertain arrangement thereafter. “It does not encourage any optimism that even before Britain has formally signed her acceptance of entry she has already backed down. The position is now completely changed and creates a situation critical for New Zealand, and on a matter on which this country was given specific assurances,” Mr Kirk said. DANGER SEEN “Mr Marshall, on page 11 of the Government’s publication ‘Britain, New Zealand and the Common Market’ said: ‘A transitional arrangement of five years or even more has been suggested; for us this would be no solution; instead of sudden death it would be death by strangulation.

“Going back on its assurances is precisely what New

Zealand is now being let in for,” said Mr Kirk. “Mr Marshall is a lawyer. One would have thought he would have been much more alive to the dangers in the wording of the arrangement and how utterly he depended on the assurances he was being given being more than superficial.” UNITY URGED

Mr Kirk said this one instance should immediately put all New Zealanders on their guard. “We cannot rely on concessions or privileges to earn our daily bread. The future of this country and the overcoming of present problems calls for hard work, initiative, and a more realistic and energetic approach to expanding markets.” This could be achieved only if the Government dropped its pretence about its “bankable assurances” and drew the people of the country together in a spirit of unity, said Mr Kirk.