House Debates London Visit By Mr Marshall

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31384, 1 June 1967, Page 3

House Debates London Visit By Mr Marshall

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 31. In the trade debate in Parliament today before the departure of the Minister of Overseas Trade (Mr Marshall) to London, the Opposition, through the Labour leader (Mr Kirk) wished Mr Marshall’s journey well; however, Mr A. H. Nordmeyer (Lab., Island Bay) sounded a gloomy note about New Zealand’s position.

The Prime Minister (Mr Holyoake) said today that the most serious problem facing New Zealand—short of war — was the vital necessity to obtain safeguards for the continued access of the country’s primary exports in the event of Britain joining the European Economic Community’.

Launching a trade debate in Parliament, Mr Holyoake said if Britain joined the Common Market, New Zealand’s traditional market for most of its primary produce Britain would be open to the increasing quantities produced in the Common Market countries.

He said the -E.E.C. had established organised markets covering about 90 per cent of its farm products—and was unlikely now to consider altering the main provision of its regulations to improve access for outside countries generally. Mr Marshall will leave Wellington tomorrow for Ministerial talks with the British Government on safeguards for New Zealand’s primary exports should Britain join the Common Market. The Prime Minister said that under existing conditions it was unlikely that New Zealand’s exports in agricultural commodities were likely to develop significantly. He named wool as an exception because it was not controlled at all—but added that nob< 'y was very enthusiastic about the prospects of wool. “The market for dairy products is virtually closed with the current exception of cheese,” he said. “The existing market for mutton and lamb is small: and should it expand to a point at which the market for other meats is affected, restrictions more severe than at present would most likely be imposed on us.”

Mr Holyoake said there were opportunities for sales of beef and veal—but added that these products were the least difficult of all to dispose of on other markets of the world.

“Exporters to the Common Market, and we are one of them, are in the position of being simply residual suppliers—able to achieve worthwhile entry for their exports only when demand within The market exceeds the supply available internally,” he said. High Prices The Prime Minister said of! perhaps greater significance was the effect of the common agricultural policy in the Common Market which comes fully into force on July I—in stimulating production and maintaining artificially high prices within the community. “The creation of surpluses in the Common Market countries which may be disposed of in outside markets at uneconomic subsidised prices could seriously prejudice

New Zealand’s ability to compete profitably in world markets,” he said. Mr Holyoake said the possibility of the Common Market countries securing an increased outlet for their primary produce surpluses was one of the possible attractions in favour of accepting Britain into the economic community.

“But if Britain insists on making special arrangements for continued access for her traditional suppliers—especially New Zealand—her problem in persuading the Common Market countries is just that much more difficult for Britain,” he said. The Prime Minister said: “We have won a special position in the British market and it must never be forgotten that we provide very special conditions for the entry of British products into our markets.

“No other country in the world, so far as I know, provides such special conditions," he said.

Mr Holyoake added that counting invisible payments, • New Zealand spent more with Britain each year than Britain spent with New Zealand. Mr W. W. Freer (Lab., Mount Albert) said it was time New Zealanders faced realities and got rid of the “She’ll be right” attitude over the country’s position should Britain enter the E.E.C. Mr Freer reminded the House that it was only four months ago that a New Zealand trade mission returning from Europe stated that this country was not doing enough to combat the serious effects of Britain’s proposed membership of the community. ‘Grave Hour’ “This is indeed a very grave hour in the economic life of this country. This might be the most serious economic crisis the country has faced since the time of the depression and the country could well face again the shocking economic repercussions that we faced at that time,” he said.

Mr Freer said that the Deputy Prime Minister was going to London with the “whole-hearted support” of the Opposition. New Zealand’s case was built on sentimental and ! historic attachments but as far as Britain was concerned —not on purely economic grounds. Mr Freer said: “Nowhere have I found any conclusive statement that the United Kingdom will not join the E.E.C. if she does not secure assurances for New Zealand. “Britain must do what is • best for Britain—this is the key to the situation," he said. Mr Freer said it could well be that Britain would not be ; able to make conditions for

New Zealand at all until she entered the Common Market, and only, then might she obtain concession on New Zealand’s behalf.

Turning to the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) should accompany Mr Marshall to London, Mr Freer said: “This is something that still bears consideration at this late hour.

“I do believe it would catch the imagination of the peole and Government of Britain if the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition went together to press New Zealand’s case. It would illustrate New Zealand’s unity in this matter.”

There were people in New Zealand who believed that there would always be a future for New Zealand as a major food producer mainly because there were so many hungry people in the world. “These people are deceiving themselves,” said Mr Freer. On the question of diversification of markets, Mr Freer said: “Time is not on New Zealand’s side.”

On the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Mr Freer said he agreed with Mr Marshall that the principle of G.A.T.T. was good. However, it had proved to be far too idealistic. Mr Marshall said it was of great importance that New Zealand should have a bi-par-tisan policy and a bi-partisan outlook on the E.E.C. problem.

“The support of the Opposition will be of great value and will greatly strengthen New Zealand’s position as far as Britain and the E.E.C. countries are concerned,” he said.

“New Zealand’s case for special consideration rests not so much on ties of sentiment as on the fact that New Zealand is the best and cheapest supplier of food in the world. “We have a strong commercial and economic case," he said. ‘Some Way Oft’’ Mr M. A. Connelly (Lab., Riccarton) told Parliament that New Zealand lived in an age of regional markets such as the. E.E.C.—and urged the Government to establish footholds in them rather than let events catch up on it. Sir Leslie Munro (Nat., Waipa) described the trade debate as one of the most important debates in the history of the New Zealand Parliament.

“We are debating the most momentus issue since the secession of America from Britain.

“It could be—so far as most of the Commonwealth is concerned and with adequate safeguards for Commonwealth countries, particularly for New Zealand —that Britain is about to cede to the United States of Europe. “Political union of this new Europe may be some way off, but economic union will eventually become political union, of that I am in no doubt,” said Sir Leslie Munro. “We must increasingly rely on ourselves and develop to the fullest possible extent our trade with North America and Japan,” he said. “Let us not be faint-hearted.” Sir Leslie Munro said that with all the uncertainties of the American market, the United States was still New Zealand’s best customer after Britain.

Mr R. J. Tizard (Lab., Pakuranga) claimed New Zealand was going to have to change its trading outlook—but said there had been no indication from the Prime Minister that he had any intention of changing his outlook.

Mr Tizard said the House should find out exactly what the Deputy Prime Minister hoped to achieve in going to London.

“I think he is going to the wrong place. I do not think there is much point in going to Britain to attend to these details at the present time,” be said.

He said it was quite apparent that any amendments to the policies of the Six would

be made before the United Kingdom was allowed to enter the E.E.C.

“The Deputy Prime Minister might as well stay at home and send a postcard as go rushing off at this time.” Mr Marshall interjected: “The member does not know what he is talking about—he is just exposing his ignorance.” Mr Tizard continued: “The French are quite prepared to consider the case of New Zealand’s farmers after the French peasant farmers have raised themselves to the standard of living we enjoy today. “In cricket terms, we are being umpired out of these negotiations,” he said. Mr W. E. Rowling (Lab., Buller) urged the Government to look closely at any possible arrangement which might be evolved if Britain entered the E.E.C. He said this was imperative in view of the apparent failure of other trading agreements New' Zealand had made.

Referring to G.A.T.T. and the Australia-New Zealand i free trade agreement, Mr Rowling said: “After the abject failure of the kennedy Round and the free trade agreement, our trade is actually being inhibited. I urge the Minister of Overseas Trade to learn from past experience and not to accept any agreement at its face value.”

Mr Rowling said that New Zealand could not continue its high dependence on the United Kingdom market when British entry seemed imminent.

He said that the hopes expressed by the Prime Minister on possible arrangements for New Zealand would be very difficult to obtain. Mr Rowling added that the crucial issue in the present situation was not what Britain did but what New Zealand did to reduce its dependency on the British market. Mr Cracknell Mr V. F. Cracknell (Social Credit, Hobson) predicted that it would be some years yet before Britain would actually enter the E.E.C. This would give New Zealand a “breathing space” to get on with the job of diversifying and improving markets. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr Taiboys) said he believed the answer to trading problems lay in international trade agreements. He said the “simple solution” of the barter-type agreement overlooked the fact that such an agreement must be detrimental to some of New Zealand’s already established trading partners. A gloomy note was cast on the debate by Mr Nordmeyer when he told Parliament New Zealand could not expect the farmers of the six Common Market countries to accept that special conditions should be given New Zealand for her exports if Britain enters the E.E.C.

“I personally can’t see any formula that will adequately protect the interests of New Zealand farmers and at the same time protect the interests of the farmers in the E.E.C.,” he said. “I would not be surprised if the negotiations entered into by Britain finally break down because I believe that the British Government has an obligation not only to New Zealand and other members of the Commonwealth —but also to its own farmers.” While it was true some branches of farming in Britain were not likely to be adversely affected if New Zealand won special conditions for her primary exports—there were other sections which would. Mr Nordmeyer said that if British negotiations to enter the E.E.C. did break down, he for one would not lament it. ‘lnflexible’ Pose “Preferences would have to go. Anyone who thinks Britain could join the Common Market and still have the advantage of Commonwealth preferences is living in a dream world. “One can’t imagine the countries of the Six, if Britain joined the E.E.C., allowing her to have lower tariff walls here than they enjoyed,” he said.

Mr Nordmeyer expressed a fear that by demanding a “permanent” right of entry for New Zealand’s products—desirable and essential as it might be—the Government might be putting itself in an inflexible position which might have to be abandoned at a later date.

Mr Nordmeyer said New Zealand might have to be satisfied with something less than permanent. “It will be unfortunate if because of our inflexible position we do not obtain what we originally wanted but what may be offered could very well be a welcome second best” he said. Mr Kirk, wishing the Deputy Prime Minister well on his mission, said: “I hope the Deputy Prime Minister achieves something better than what we all fear but as good as we all hope for.”