Australians told not to underestimate N.Z.

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32563, 24 March 1971, Page 2

Australians told not to underestimate N.Z.

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) SYDNEY, March 23. The “Australian Financial Review” today ran an eight-page special supplement on Australian-New Zealand trade in which the managing director of Thomas Nationwide Transport, Ltd (Mr P. Abeles) wrote under the heading, “Don’t take New Zealand for granted.”

Mr Abeles said that United Kingdom trade from 1958-69 had decreased from 47.29 per cent to 30.52 per cent, the major inroads having been made by Japan, the United States and the European Economic Community. All these overseas competitors realised the tremendous potential of the New Zealand market, he said. Australia should take advantage not only of her relations through the New Zea-land-Australia Free Trade Agreement (NA.F.T.A) but of the fact that the average New Zealander, once he was accepted as an equal partner, preferred to deal with Australia more than with any

other country, Mr Abeles wrote.

Over the next few years, Australia would have to show a lot of understanding and patience towards New Zealand because New Zealand would need to readjust if Britain joined the E.E.C. With joint economic strength, Australia and New Zealand would be in a much better position to counter pressures that would arise during the development of their close neighbours in the same geographical area of South-East Asia. Mr Abeles said trade between the two countries over the last few years had proved for the Australian business community that New Zealand could be a true partner, and not just a little brother. Commenting on the Austra-lian-New Zealand business

scene, Sir James Doig, chairman and managing director of U.E.B. Industries, Ltd, said the only real difference between the two countries was size. The New Zealand -Australia Free Trade Agreement had clearly reached a watershed period in its short history, and could either go forward into new areas or grind to a halt and become decreasingly important to both countries, Robert Sorby wrote in the newspaper. What seemed to have developed in the five years since N.AF.T.A. came into existence was a change in emphasis on both sides of the Tasman, he said. N.A.F.T.A. was from the outset one of the main events affecting New Zealand’s international trade, said Sorby. It was also of importance for Australia, particularly the

manufacturing interests, but on an international trade basis its importance had been outweighed by other developments, notably the very rapid development in exports of minerals and mineral products, he said. “This division has heightened in recent months as the spectre of the United Kingdom’s entry into the Common Market has started to sink home in New Zealand.” New Zealand was Australia’s biggest market for manufacturers, and Australia occupied the same position for New Zealand manufactured goods, although the balance of trade was still two to one in Australia’s favour, Sorby said. However, trade between New Zealand and Australia was far from free. According to a recent survey only one-half of actual trade between the two countries was under the duty free provisions of N.A.F.T.A., and the percentage of the potential trade that would take place under unrestricted free trade across the Tasman was considerably smaller,. Sorby said.