[asia-apec 1104] GATT Watchdog Media Release 2/5/99

[Gatt Watchdog]

GATT Watchdog
PO Box 1905
Christchurch
Aotearoa (New Zealand)

MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE
2 May 1999

The $3500+ Question: MAF's APEC Official Information Act stance outrageous

Fair trade coalition GATT Watchdog is outraged at a Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry (MAF) response to an Official Information Act request for
information relating to moves to liberalise trade in the forest products
sector at APEC and the World Trade Organisation.

In a letter of 30 April 1999, writing on behalf of MAF's Director-General,
Alan Kerr told GATT Watchdog that before work can begin on its request of 15
April the group will have to agree to pay an estimated $3,500 for staff time
alone - on top of which photocopying in excess of 20 pages will be charged at
20 cents a page.

"The Official Information Act is supposed to make official information more
freely available to the public.  What a joke! MAF's response amounts to a
dishonest attempt to withhold official information.  How many community
organisations can afford over $3500 for official information - especially when
there is a high chance that much of it will be heavily censored or withheld?"
asked GATT Watchdog spokesman, Aziz Choudry.

"This is the most outrageous in a long series of unsatisfactory APEC-related
Official Information Act replies from government ministries. It really gives
the lie to government claims of openness in relation to APEC.  However it is
entirely consistent with the government's "communications strategy and
branding exercise" for APEC 1999 which, according to Cabinet strategy papers
obtained last year, aims to quickly establish "an overall brand image in the
market place" but "will not focus on the complex substance of the APEC process
such as trade liberalisation or facilitation"".

"Unlike the government, GATT Watchdog believes that there needs to be informed
debate about free trade and its impact.  Timely access to official information
is vital for any in-depth analysis and contest of policy decisions and
processes".

"By charging like a wounded bull, we can only assume that MAF objects to any
independent scrutiny of its position. So much for all the government's talk
about transparency in relation to APEC policy processes," says Mr Choudry.

In his letter to GATT Watchdog, MAF's Alan Kerr writes:
"You have asked whether the Ministry has carried out an assessment of the
likely impacts of the APEC and/or WTO moves to liberalise trade in forest
products on New Zealand and the APEC region as a whole.  The Ministry has not
yet undertaken a stand-alone assessment of the likely impacts.  There are no
plans to carry out such an assessment in the near future."

"This admission makes MAF's deliberately obstructive, exorbitant request for
thousands of dollars even more outrageous. Despite the failure to conclude the
APEC Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalisation negotiations on trade in forest
products in Kuala Lumpur last year, New Zealand, along with the USA and
Canada continues to support a forest trade liberalisation agreement at the
WTO.  And yet there is no sign of any assessment of the impact of this being
contemplated.  For all of its clean green talk, the New Zealand government
chooses to ignore the environmental consequences of its negotiating positions.
And it clearly doesn't want to risk any independent assessment being carried
out by anyone else," says Mr Choudry.

"This global forestry industry push to liberalise trade in forest products
threatens environmental safeguards and trade controls.  These include tariffs
and non-tariff measures, import restrictions on forest products that carry
invasive pests, certification or eco-labelling schemes and "unreasonably" high
standards for forest management and production.  Liberalisation of the global
forest product trade will lower prices, and increase consumption and the
volume of trade in forest products.  It will allow forest industry giants to
get governments to sweep away regulations which might stand in the way of
their increased exploitation of this dwindling resource and increased profits.
Apparently this does not concern MAF," he said.

GATT Watchdog has written to the Office of the Ombudsmen asking for a review of the MAF decision.

For further comment: ph Aziz Choudry, GATT Watchdog (03) 3662803