Farm Groups Withholding Support From Australia Trade Deal
May 19, 2004
By Jerry Hagstrom, Congress Daily

Most U.S. farm groups and agribusinesses are not supporting the U.S.-Australian free trade agreement that officials signed Tuesday.

But whether they actively lobby against it in Congress may depend on whether the agreement is offered in tandem with a trade deal with Morocco that benefits U.S. agriculture and whether Australia agrees to remove certain animal and plant health restrictions on U.S. products.

Senate Finance Chairman Grassley has suggested that voting on the two agreements the same day might make it easier to pass both, but U.S. and Australian business interests have questioned that strategy.

Farm groups do not like the deal because it reduces tariffs and other restrictions on most Australian commodities coming into the United States and is likely to result in increased imports.

Many agribusiness groups, such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America and the National Food Processors Association, do not like it because it does not reduce restrictions on U.S. sugar imports.

The American Meat Institute, whose members include importers of meat from Australia, is supporting the agreement. But a National Chicken Council spokesman said it opposes the deal because Australia will not let in any U.S. chicken unless "it's cooked for such a time and at such a high temperature it is not edible."

The National Farmers Union and the cattle group R-CALF USA oppose the agreement, and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association's executive committee said it would "oppose any Australian free trade agreement that does not include adequate safeguards."

"We're sure not going to the Hill and lobby for it," said Greg Doud, the NCBA's chief economist.

The Citizens Trade Campaign, which includes the National Family Farm Coalition and Public Citizen, as well as environmental, labor and church groups, said Tuesday it opposes the agreement because "it could hurt thousands of family farmers and ranchers, especially in the dairy, beef and wheat sectors."

The National Milk Producers Federation also opposes the agreement, but NMPF spokesman Chris Galen said whether it will be "active, hyperactive or passive-aggressive" might depend on issues such as whether Congress takes up the Morocco agreement.

When an Australian legal review panel approved U.S. pork imports last week, the American Farm Bureau Federation said it was "pleased," but that access was still needed for other products, such as citrus, poultry, stone fruit and apples. The National Pork Producers Council still has not taken a stand.

The Farm Bureau, NPPC and American Soybean Association were rare among farm groups in sending representatives to the signing ceremony Tuesday. Chris Garza, the Farm Bureau representative, said he was there because the Australians last week "sent a sign they are willing to work" on the animal and plant health issues.

But when Australian Trade Minister Mark Vaile was asked after the ceremony if Australia would make more adjustments in its animal and health plant rules, he said he was "not sure on the timetable of those scientific analyses."

View All News