THE PRESS TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1979. N.Z.-Aust. trade
The question that lingers after the annual New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement talks ended last week is: where does the trading relationship go from here? Nothing of any substance was accomplished at the talks, a result that is disappointing to both sides. The subjects of carpets, peas and beans, and whiteware came up, having the same sort of effect as a too-frequently repeated refrain in a song. Industry talks will take up the same subjects. New Zealand wants greater access to Australia for woollen carpets: Australia wants greater access for carpets with synthetics because the manufacturers feel it is not worth the trouble to make carpet for New Zealand at the present levels. New Zealanders want Australians to eat more New Zealand peas and beans; the Australians do not mind the beans, but show no signs of eating more frozen peas than they are already eating. The whiteware scene is complicated because Email, Ltd, Australia’s biggest manufacturer of electrical goods, has just bought Kelvinator, and has to work out what this means to itself before anyone can work out what this means to New Zealand.
Other hardy annuals were also raised. The Australian Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Doug Anthony, said that of the 400 or so items which were in the duty-free schedule of the agreement, a high proportion were subject to import licensing, and the president of the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Association. Mr F. Turnovsky, said that New Zealand manufacturers felt that, if they developed a trade in Australia, they would be “clobbered.” There were some moves at the talks to go backwards rather than forwards. Some items in the duty-free schedule came under attack from Australians who wanted to see them removed. The New Zealand and Australian Ministers attending the meeting said afterwards that the institutional framework of NAF T A “in today’s circumstances” was limited.
Therein, perhaps, lies a clue to the future. One direction in which they pointed was to the Australian-New Zealand Businessmen’s Council. Mr Turnovskv criticised what he called a
lack of political will in the trading relationship, and said that industries could not resolve some of the problems because of competing interests. He obviously regarded the Ministers as passing the buck. It is not altogether fair to regard the new council in quite the same light as a collection of firms, because the council might be able to suggest lines that could be followed. Its task would not be easy because various other organisations have attempted to take over-all views. The further such organisations are away from the factory, the more far-sighted they become, yet it is those closest to the factory which feel the effects of the policies first.
But if questions are being asked about the “institutional framework” of N.A.F.T.A., what else can anyone have in mind? Mr Anthony, and the New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, Mr Taiboys, have been deeply involved in assessing the outcome of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations which have nearly ended in Geneva. Neither New Zealand nor Australia are going to benefit greatly from the outcome of these drawn-out talks. Mr Anthony was obviously thinking about world trading patterns when he said: “. . . there are so many other groupings around the world that are finding it to their advantage to get closer together, and we sit down here in the Pacific—two countries more alike than you will find anywhere else in the world—and yet we have reached a sort of plateau in our trade relations which is presenting problems to us.” In a generally depressing set of talks, Mr Anthony’s words at least offered something worth pondering. The M.T.N. served the purposes of the United States, the European Economic Community, and Japan in ways which they did not serve the interests of the smaller countries, in particular New Zealand and Australia. The idea that New Zealand and Australia should tackle trading problems together makes good sense. They should not hesitate to explore other forms of association, of which a customs union, a common market, or some other form of economic association have been suggested in the past.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19790417.2.108
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Press, 17 April 1979, Page 16
Word count
Tapeke kupu
689THE PRESS TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1979. N.Z.-Aust. trade Press, 17 April 1979, Page 16
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Copyright in all Footrot Flats cartoons is owned by Diogenes Designs Ltd. The National Library has been granted permission to digitise these cartoons and make them available online as part of this digitised version of the Press. You can search, browse, and print Footrot Flats cartoons for research and personal study only. Permission must be obtained from Diogenes Designs Ltd for any other use.
Acknowledgements
Ngā mihi
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.