Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wilson Margaret: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10688] 
11 
.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
 on behalf of  
TIM GROSER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What progress if any has he made in the decades-long dispute to allow the importation of New Zealand apples into Australia? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Phil Goff. I understand that you have an answer that is longer than normal but not too long. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 It is slightly longer with the leave of the House. New Zealand apples have been locked out of the Australian market now for 85 years. Over the last 9 months we have made some progress in having that ban lifted. In November the Australians published their final import risk analysis relating to apple imports from New Zealand and in March their final policy determination. These concede for the first time the possibility of Australia allowing apples from New Zealand to have access but they also continue restrictions that we regard as being scientifically unjustified. Without accepting those restrictions we have instructed Biosecurity New Zealand to negotiate with its Australian counterpart a work plan and a standard operating procedure to see what these conditions would mean in practice for access of our apples. We are awaiting the Australian response to the standard operating procedure; it now regrettably appears to be further delayed because of pressure from the Australian apple industry and political sensitivities within the Australian system in the lead-up to the election. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much longer does the Government need to reach the conclusion that raising this diplomatic issue with the phytosanitary committee is largely meaningless unless it is backed by a clear determination to proceed to a formal disputes settlement? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Taking the matter to the World Health Organization (WTO) disputes procedure has always been a live option and I have to say that given the latest efforts by Australia to frustrate the finalisation of the standard operating procedures it becomes an even more likely outcome. 
Hon David Carter 
: Just do it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member can say “Just do it.” but actually this Government has worked very closely with the pipfruit industry and it was the view of the pipfruit industry—and it was shared by ourselves—that the better process to take was to finalise the procedures within the Australian system to see whether we can get meaningful access commercially. The member can shake his head but that is the view of his apple growers as represented in the pipfruit industry and the action group. We are working closely with that group. We have said at all times that there is the option of taking the Australians to the WTO. The downside to that is of course that it would take several years to get finalisation. We will continue to work in close consultation with the industry and make our decisions accordingly. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What consultation has the Minister had with the pipfruit industry regarding the question of apple access to Australia? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Over the last 9 months I think I—along with Jim Anderton as the Minister of Agriculture and Rick Barker as the Minister of Internal Affairs—have met with the pipfruit industry on three occasions in December in March and in May. Indeed yesterday we had a teleconference with the industry to bring it up to date with the latest moves within Australia. I think it is fair to say that the industry and the Government share the same analysis of the problem and share the same strategy in terms of addressing the problem. I look forward to continuing the very constructive and positive partnership we have with the industry. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What results did the previous administration have in its 9 years of Government—or any other administration in the last 80 years—in overcoming the issue of access of New Zealand apples to the Australian markets? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the answer is obvious: they got absolutely nowhere. But I do not want to make petty party politics like the Opposition is trying to do over this issue. I have indicated to Tim Groser my counterpart that I am happy to work closely with him and will do so. This is a case for a “New Zealand Inc.” approach. That is what the Government is doing with the industry itself and we are happy to do it with the Opposition provided that it puts politics to one side. 
Chris Tremain 
: When the Minister said in his speech this morning to the pipfruit industry: “I am confident that a case taken to the WTO would succeed.” did that mean that he after years of refusal now agrees with the National Party that the only way to resolve this issue is to immediately begin a disputes process against Australia at the WTO? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Again I prefer to agree with the industry which has most at stake here rather than with the member and his efforts to make politics out of the issue. At this stage the industry is in agreement with the Government that we want to finish the standard operating procedures process so that if there is any chance of our getting our apples in they will get in. I am sure that once New Zealand apples are on the market there will be consumer demand for them. I have never ruled out—nor has Jim Anderton—taking the issue to the WTO. We will do that if it is seen by ourselves and the industry as the most effective way of resolving this dispute. If we do it the way will be open for the Australians at any time to come back to try to negotiate an earlier deal than the WTO might provide on the basis that that would provide real access for our apples and on the basis that any restrictions would be scientifically based. By that I mean true science and not the political science that Alexander Downer has famously quoted. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are our chances of winning a WTO case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am very confident at this point our having exhausted as many avenues as we can within the Australian system that both on process and on substance our case would be upheld at the WTO. I believe that our case is scientifically based and I believe that the precedent established in the case involving United States apples gaining access to Japan is a good precedent. I would however point out that probably 5 or 6 years after that case was first taken to the WTO Japan still does not allow United States apples to have access notwithstanding the United States winning a clear victory in the disputes process. So it is a little more complex than some members of the National Opposition might imagine.