International worries for farmers

Press, 31 October 1981, Page 1

International worries for farmers

By

BRUCE KOHN,

NZPA staff correspondent

New Zealand's farming organisations are caught in the middle as the Government deals with two significant international issues. The issues involve the threat of a law in the United States inhibiting New Zealand’s $4OO million meat trade, and the request by the Reagan Administration for New Zealand to contribute to the Sinai peace-keeping force.

Officials of farming organisations made clear early this week their concern over the prospect of the legislation becoming law and a perceived danger of a trade retaliation should New Zealand join the Middle East force.

There seems a possibility that they may win one of the two issues at the expense of losing the other, or might even lose the pesticide one and still face the chance of trade damage in the Middle East. Government sources said yesterday that there was no question that the threat of legislation in the United States had a bearing on the decision of the Cabinet to approve in principle New Zealand making a contribution to the force.

They said that the Government was pinning its hopes on a Presidential veto of the legislation approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate which would impose fresh standards on American imports of meat.

The meat would have to come from countries imposing similar pesticide and insecticide restrictions to those applicable in the United States, even though the pestcontrol problems of exporting countries may be quite different from those in America. New Zealand has four prospects of avoiding the imposition of the restriction. The first involves'a hope that

representatives of the Senate and the House do not reach agreement on the wording of the legislation, which is tacked on to a major United States farm bill. • The second covers the hope that the representatives of the two chambers may in their deliberations make the legislation less restrictive, taking into account the representations of international farming interests. The third embraces the exercise of a Presidential veto, and the fourth involves considerable . expenditure, probably by the Meat Board, in supporting Challenges to the validity of the legislation through the American court system. New Zealand’s diplomatic effort was initially directed at preventing the legislation being passed by the Senate and the House. It failed.

The second phase was directed at the White House and senior Administration officials in a bid to influence the President to exercise his veto' powers and the lobby influence of the White House to have the legislation made less restrictive.

But a good deal of pessimism was said to exist this week in Government ranks about whether the President would exercise a veto. This is because of an Administration desire to see the over-all farm bill into the law.

Most of the provisions in the bill are fully acceptable to the White House and in accord with its policy. A veto may not be exercised against the meat import provisions without killing the whole bill.

The Government sources said that against this background the Cabinet believed it would be at least prudent to be showing at this time a desire to meet the United States request on the Sinai force. N.Z. lamb “has case to answer.” — Page 3