Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:20802] 
9.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: Why did he reportedly say on 23 May with regard to getting access for New Zealand apples into Australia that he is waiting on the result of both Australia’s import risk assessment and a World Trade Organization compliance panel investigating Japan? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 Because those two events are clearly relevant to the resolution of this issue. The Japan-US case turns on a similar point. That is why New Zealand participated in the case as a third party. But that is not all we have done. We continue to argue strongly New Zealand’s case for apples access at every appropriate opportunity with the Australian Government. I can assure members that the Government will maintain these efforts until access has been gained. 
Dail Jones 
: Why does the Minister persist in referring to the America-Japan case when as long ago as November 2003 that case was decided in favour of the United States; does the Minister not see the irony in Australia chairing the Cairns group of agricultural nations supporting free trade when Australia is blatantly blocking access for our apple growers based on no scientific evidence whatsoever; and when will he ditch his softly-softly approach to Australian protectionism and use the World Trade Organization to uphold our right to free access to the Australian market for our pipfruit growers as New Zealand First plans to do as part of its 2005 election policy on trade? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I shall confine myself to the first of those questions. The reason I continue to refer to the Japan-US case is that despite an initial decision in 2003 no apples have yet flowed across the border and there is still a dispute over the implementation of the finding. So that is a very important precedent to the case many of us anticipate will eventually be taken by New Zealand against Australia. We have been assured by the Australian Government however that it will take into account the outcome of the Japan-US case in forming its import risk assessment. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister think that Australia just might be giving both him and New Zealand apple exporters the run-around; if not how long will he allow Australia to complete its import risk assessment which it seems to recommence or extend every time a general election looms before he does take Australia to the World Trade Organization? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I point out that the World Trade Organization disputes settlement is a legal process and things have to be done in the right way if one hopes to get the success one needs. As the member will appreciate legal processes can be frustratingly slow. I would also remind the member that this dispute went on throughout the 9 years of the National Government and that it did not do a blind thing about it. 
Dail Jones 
: Now that the Minister has confirmed that in almost 6 years the Labour Government has not done a blind thing about it when will he adopt the approach the Australians have adopted with regard to these matters—for example the Tasmanian state Government Minister for Primary Industries and Water Steve Kons who wishes to probe New Zealand’s use of chemicals in vegetable production which is really just another smokescreen for protectionism—and when will the Minister actually commence a World Trade Organization case because the sooner it is started obviously the sooner it will be finished and we do not want to wait another 6 or 15 years for New Zealand First to have to commence one as soon as possible? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am really surprised that a New Zealand political party should advocate shonky protectionism against our trading partners. I remind the member that we are a small country. We cannot bully our trading partners. We rely on the rule of law and the member would do well to remember that.