THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1979. Lunch at Number 10

Press, 13 June 1979, Page 18

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1979. Lunch at Number 10

The lunch at 10 Downing Street which the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, attended appears to have given him considerable hope that the new Conservative Government in Britain will look very favourably on New Zealand trade. It is the first strong indication from a political level about the attitude of the British Government to New Zealand and to New Zealand trade. Such assurances may be considered heartening.

For butter. New Zealand has no alternative markets. With the best efforts in the world New Zealand would be unable to find any which could be a substitute for Britain after the present agreement expires in 1980. If Mr Muldoon’s optimism is soundly based, the whole of New Zealand has reason to be pleased by the course of conversation at the lunch.

Mr Muldoon gave several reasons for his reaction. One was that the British Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, bought New’ Zealand lamb and butter and wanted to continue buying it. A second was that she had indicated to her Agriculture Minister, Mr Peter Walker, who was also at the lunch, that he should fight for New Zealand in the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Another was that those attending the lunch were interested in the proposals about New’ Zealand’s future trade with the European Economic Community put forward by the E.E.C.’s Agriculture Commissioner, Mr Finn Olav Gundelach. These apparently contain some long-term arrangements. Mr Muldoon also found in Mrs Thatcher, a “close friend,” an awareness of New Zealand’s case.

Because he was present at the lunch, Mr Muldoon will be the best judge of the feeling there. The reasons he chose to give for his optimism contain some interesting aspects. One is about the relationship between the supply of New Zealand agricultural produce and the British consumer. New Zealand could appeal more directly to the consumer over the heads of the Governments but such a plan might

have bad repercussions. If Mrs Thatcher, however, plans to identify herself with the British housewife, as her views might suggest, this could place an entirely different complexion on the chances of success for New Zealand’s appeal to the consumer lobby and at the same time being acceptable to the British Government. What will bear watching is whether Mrs Thatcher, in her public statements, as opposed to lunch-time conversation, seems out to court consumers. She may do this. During her election campaign she would frequently dash into a supermarket, causing one journalist to comment that it was as if she had to do the week-end shopping.

There may still be cause to reserve judgment on how strongly the Conservatives will fight for New Zealand. It has to be remembered that it was a Conservative Government which took Britain into the E.E.C., that the Conservative Party is a party supported by farmers, who are not generally enthusiastic about imports of agricultural produce, and that the new European Parliament will have a heavy concentration of British Conservatives. They may not see eye to eye with Mrs Thatcher on the subject. If Mrs Thatcher is able to get her own way with the members of her Cabinet, many of whom are widely experienced men who may have their own ideas on what is going to be done, trade may well go better for New Zealand.

The Gundelach proposals to which Mr Muldoon has referred have not yet been made public; they sound promising. As Mr Muldoon says, something other than transitional arrangements would be welcome. The power play that may come about as the new European Parliament settles to work with the European Commission may be a factor in what happens to New Zealand’s trade. Even if Mr Gundelach’s proposals were to go forward from the commission to the Council of Ministers the council need not accept them. In that circle of European politics the good will shown at the Downing Street lunch will be vital to New Zealand.