Little room for states to block Tasman trade

Press, 11 October 1979, Page 20

Little room for states to block Tasman trade

By

STUART McMILLAN

Part Vof the Australian Constitution begins with the words: "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for rhe peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth in respect to: — (l> Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States . . The point is important because of the consideration that is being given to a new economic association between New Zealand and Australia. Fears held by some New Zealand officials, and referred to in an article in "The Press” yesterday, that the Australian states have the power under the Constitution to impose their own quotas or tariffs, are groundless. The Constitution does not give the states such authority. If it did, the prospect of having to conduct eight sets of negotiations with Australia — one with Canberra, the others with the seven states — would be daunting indeed. The states do have other devices by which they may impede the flow of "trade. They impose their own health standards and some manufacturing standards differ. They may also have different labelling requirements. Anyone who has travelled by car between New South Wales and Queensland, for instance, finds that it is illegal to take fruit across the border Official spending could also upset international trade. A state government may direct its purchasing where it will. Three years ago the Premier of New South Wales. Mr Neville Wran, directed that the New South Wales Government should give preference to buying goods made in New South Wales. His argument was that the state had severe unemployment and Government purchases could be used to alleviate it. The different standards among the states have made some trade difficult. The trend, however, is towards the same standards, just as various states have begun to adopt the same gauge of railwav lines. The relationship between the Commonwealth Government and the state Governments is never easy and it would unwise for the

states to be left out of consultations. However, there is nothing to suggest that New Zealand would be at a greater disadvantage in trading than is one Australian state in trading with another. The suggestion in the article that the talks are going ahead at Australia’s insis-

Across 7— Venus at the card table? (5 2.6) 8— Sparklers worn by 7 at the card-table? (8) 9— Matching clothes at the card-table? (4) 10— Article in meal in small boat. (6) 12— Evidence of lameness I had was clear. (6) 14— Vend a broken marriage? (6) 16— To stop some parades is terrible. (6) 18— Association at the card-table? (4) 20— Languish badly now the tree has gone? (4, 4) 22—Long-suffering no more — card game finished? (3, 2.8) Down 1— Disinfect mug if tea spilt. (8) 2— Teutonic manger. (6) 3— Depressed because losing at cards? (4) 4— Played first at cards and went “Whew”? (8) 5— Healing agent among herbal samples. (6) 6— A change of direction in 9 changed the case. (4) 11— Dance tune which needs two wind instruments. (8) 13— Ancients for example. (8) 15— No bail for ancient Britain. (6) 17— 9 for diggers at the card-table? (6) 19— Boor is wrong by 50. (4) 21— Crackers—cracked, too, possibly! (4) (Solution tomorrow) Yesterday’s solution Across: 1. Mica; 8, Trade route; 9, Team-work; 10. Digs: 12, Staple; 14, Dowser: 15. Tennis: 17. Paying; 18, Star: 19, Restrain; 21. Gramaphone; 22, Late. Down: 2. Investment; 3, Atom: 4. Galore; 5, Peeked; 6. Hold sway: 7. Less; 11, Green light: 13, Panorama; 16, Strips; 17, Piston; 18, Sage; 20, Reel.

tence does not take into account the fact that New Zealand has been asking for Australia’s attention for some time. At the moment, New Zealand has that attention. Any impression that New Zealand is being carried kicking and screaming into talks it does not want is false.