THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1978. An agreement with Japan

Press, 4 July 1978, Page 16

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 4, 1978. An agreement with Japan

Because the details are being kept secret, it is impossible to judge how well New Zealand has fared in the recent agreement with Japan. New Zealand is going to allow Japanese fishermen access to New Zealand fishing grounds but it is not known how much greater access New Zealand will have for agricultural produce in the Japanese market The few clues do not promise a much brighter course for New Zealand. The Prime Minister. Mr Muldoon, has said that the Dairy Board found the agreement very satisfactory: but it has to be borne in mind that the board faces the possible loss of the British market for butter after 1980. It was to be expected that the board would be enthusiastic about any agreement in which dairy products gain an outlet. In spite of protracted discussions and scientific tests Japan has not yet found radiata pine suitable for building in Japan, so the assurances of the Japanese Minister of Agriculture, Mr Nakagawa, that Japan would promote the imports of radiata pine, if it is found strong enough, have to be treated with some caution. The best clue lies in the caution of Mr Muldoon. Had the agreement been more to New Zealand’s benefit he would have been sure to have shown greater enthusiasm. At the moment it appears that the main Japanese concession was on dairy products. The Japanese remain silent on whether this amounts to more than the earlier offer, then held to be inadequate, of taking milk powder for foreign aid and school lunches. The prob-

able conclusion is that New Zealand has obtained a favoured position as a supplier of dairy products to the Japanese market.

This view is reinforced by several statements. Mr Muldoon said that he thought the secrecy was not for domestic reasons in Japan but because the agreement affected Japan’s relations with other countries. Also, the statement issued after the Wellington talks, said that Japan accepted New Zealand as “the most important and most reliable supplier of dairy products.” Practically all the dairy • products imported into Japan go through the Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation. Its purchases vary widely from year to year. Mr Muldoon’s statement that the secrecy was not for Japanese domestic reasons invites the deduction that Japan is not intending to increase over-all domestic consumption of dairy products and that New Zealand will continue to be used as a residual supplier. Japan is apparently not intending to reform its agricultural policies, which tend to increase production and discourage consumption. This implies a gloomy outlook for dairy exporting countries. So long as agricultural products are treated differently from industrial products in world trade negotiations, New Zealand will have to fight for a better deal. New Zealand should insist that the details of the agreement be made public as soon as Japan has had a chance to conduct talks with other suppliers of dairy products.