Benefits to S.I.

Press, 18 June 1982, Page 16

Benefits to S.I.

Closer Economic Relations with Australia offered the South Island access to four or five metropolitan markets, compared with the one — Auckland — to which it now had access, the Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr Templeton) told the seminar.

In the South Island he had heard the plea in regard to C.E.R’, “We are disadvantaged.” “If New Zealand remains the market you are,” the Minister said. • The New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement had given New Zealand, manufacturing a tremendous boost in the last 15 years, Mr Templeton said. But the agreement was limited and extremely difficult to operate. “To all intents and purposes in political purposes it has run into the sand."

There was . now a way N.A.F.T.A. could be expanded. “We were in great fear of having it turned back on us and losing some of the advantages we had.”

New Zealand could not sit on N.A.F.T.A. as it existed, said the Minister. C.E.R. was about providing some degree of continuity of access to the Australian market, he said. By giving up some of the short-term advantages, either in terms of incentives or in terms of access, New Zealand would get a much wider access on a continuing basis. , C.E.R. would be “openended, automatic, and predictable,” he said. “But it is not going to throw people to the wolves.” An elaborate system of safeguards had been built in so that C.E.R. could be introduced without disruption or unfair competition. - “We will monitor it as we go, and there will be annual consultations, and at the end of five years, a major review.” The critical safeguard was, s the gradualism of the shift away from tariffs, and? the’’ gradualism with which? import licensing barriers to Australian production would

be lowered. On individual aspects •of C.E.R.. Mr Templeton said: 9 Export incentives: The Government had accepted New Zealand incentives must be harmonised over a period with Australia’s. New Zealand’s would remain unchanged until 1985, but the Government would have liked them to remain until 1987; the negotiations had broken down in April on this point. • State purchasing: The states of Australia offered first preference in their purchases to firms in their own slate, then to other states, and thirdly to overseas, including New Zealand. New Zealand was asking that each state should regard New Zealand as of equal preference to another state. Where reciprocity was not granted. New Zealand would withhold reciprocity from that slate. • Standards: Problems with these had been identified and New Zealand was now in a position to take them up with the Australian Government.