American attack on lamb imports widens

Press, 29 April 1981, Page 17

American attack on lamb imports widens

PA .Wellington The American sheepfarmsrs’ attack on New Zealand lamb imports has widened into a serious assault on many Government agriculture incentives. The new twist in the trade dispute raises serious questions about all exports of primary products to the United States, not just lamb. The countervailing duty action filed by the United States National Woolgrowers’ Association claims that lamb exports receive not only export incentive subsidies, but many other agricultural subsidies,, It wants punitive duties applied to lamb to counter these' “subsidies.”

Export incentives have already been ruled unfair by the United States Commerce Department, in its ruling on exports of ear-tags by Delta Plastics of Palmerston North.

.- If the department finds that agriculture subsidies are also unfair, it would open the way for a similar attack by American producers on a huge range of New Zealand imports, including the $4OO million beef trade.

Details of the petition have been received by Devco, the company which handles all exports of lamb to North America.

The association’s petition singles out Government fertiliser subsidies, the Government’s supplementary minimum price scheme under which producers are guaran-

teed a certain minimum price for their products, herd improvement incentives, and Rural Bank suspensory loans to increase stock numbers. It even calls the Government’s decision in 1979 to adopt a floating devaluation of the exchange rate, a “subsidy” on lamb exports. It also claims the Meat Producers Board is subsidising exports by supervising meat grading standards, holding debentures in freezing companies, granting “advances to producers,” and by favourable ocean freight rates resulting from the board's “monopoly” on exports. The Minister of Overseas Trade (Mr Taiboys) branded the sheepfarmers' move as "political.” There were no grounds for believing New Zealand lamb was adversely affecting United States domestic producers, he said.

“On the contrary, our careful marketing policies in the United States market have promoted the sale of lamb as a product and there is no conflict between our frozen product and the United States fresh lamb.”

Mr Taiboys said the Reagan Administration was aware of New Zealand’s concern, not only about the ■action against an important export product, put also over the way in which the United States was implementing its countervailing duty and subsidies policy.

“When I was in Washington recently I had reassurances from key Cabinet members and officials of the new Administration that they would not wish to see United States trade and economic policies materially affecting the regular and established exports of a responsible partner like New Zealand.” This view had been echoed by members of the Congressional delegation who visited last week, he said. The lamb trade was an important part of the total economic relationship with the United States, and any threat to the trade must be of concern to both New Zealand and the United States Governments, he said. The chairman of the Meat Board, Mr A. M. Begg, said

from the United States that the petition would not benefit American lamb producers and could prove damaging. Mr Begg was angry that the sheepfarmers filed the petition only days before a meeting of the Lamb Promotion Co-ordination Committee, a lamb promotion body composed of New Zealand, Australian and United States interests to bring pressure on New Zealand to apply voluntary restraints on its lamb exports, which United States producers claimed were damaging their interests. Mr Begg, who is visiting the United States to attend the Promotion Co-ordinating committee, will have discussions in Washington on the lamb question.