THE PRESS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1978. Secret deal with Japan

Press, 5 December 1978, Page 18

THE PRESS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1978. Secret deal with Japan

New Zealand’s interests are being served badly by the secrecy of the agreement between Japan and New’ Zealand over access to the New Zealand fishing zone and access to the Japanese market for agricultural produce. The agreement was signed in July and the details have not yet been announced. The recent report in the ‘’Financial Times” that New Zealand might sell dairy produce to Japan worth $5OO million a year is utter nonsense but the secrecy invites speculation. In this instance the speculation had a distinct political and trade purpose: New Zealand dairy produce is embarrassing certain dairy interests in Europe and it seems that any propaganda which would help to exclude New Zealand from the European market would be encouraged. Had the New Zealand agreement with the Japanese been public such a damaging report would not have been possible.

How great the damage has been cannot yet be judged. The “Financial Times” is usually authoritative and is influential. Christopher Parkes, the newspaper’s commodities writer, quoted “senior sources in the European dairy industry” but did not name them. Many within the European dairy industry would like to see continued the present system of encouraging production and discouraging consumption by high prices. New Zealand has long fought against the Common Agricultural Policy on this point. It has another battle on its hands at present: continued access to the British market for butter after the present agreement runs out in 1980. The Council of Agriculture Ministers may decide soon whether New Zealand will have continued access and for how

much. Christopher Parkes’s report could not have come at a much worse time. To dismiss the report as inaccurate is easy enough, but the idea that there is nothing in it at all will be hard to make widely understood. In fact, no reason exists to believe that New Zealand is likely to sell Japan dairy products worth half that amount, or even a quarter. Recently the Minister of Overseas Trade, Mr Taiboys, used the figure of $6 million but without saying whether he meant that it referred to each year. If Christopher Parkes had consulted knowledgeable New Zealand sources he would have found scepticism about whether New Zealand had gained anything from the agreement with Japan beyond a few minor tariff cuts and a favoured status as a supplier of dairy products. Such a status is of doubtful advantage because Japan imports little dairy produce: in 1977 its total imports of butter amounted to 3500 tonnes and this year’s imports may be even lower than that. When the agreement was signed the account given was that the details were to be kept secret at the request of the Japanese. It was an unsatisfactory arrangement from the start. The Government should announce without delay whether the details are being kept secret at the request of Japan and for how long such an arrangement is expected to last. If the details are being kept secret now because they might be embarrassing to the Government, that position is inexcusable. A vital New Zealand trade is at stake. Apart from the damage that may be done by nourishing rumours, the New Zealand producer and processor must eventually be told what they can expect of the Japanese market.