Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21258] 
11.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What progress if any can he report in the battle to get access to the Australian market for New Zealand apples? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 The Government has decided to inscribe the Australian apples issue on the agenda of this month’s meeting of the World Trade Organization Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. We have been trying hard for many years to get a fair deal for New Zealand apple growers. We consider that the science is clear but regrettably the whole Australian process has dragged on too long. 
Hon David Carter 
: Why has it taken the Minister so long to act; and was it just because of the threat of another embarrassing protest on the steps of Parliament next week like that over the “fart tax”? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Multilateral action is not something any country should take lightly. It has never before had to be resorted to by either Australia or New Zealand against each other. Our objective is to get access for our apples and we have now decided to take a significant step in the World Trade Organization process. Unfortunately although we appeared to be on the brink of success in 1990 the then incoming National Government let the matter drop and did not reapply until 1999. 
Dail Jones 
: Bearing in mind that this question follows many questions by New Zealand First in recent times can the Minister confirm that he is actually taking this dispute not to the World Trade Organization but only to a committee; and when will he do something about it and take it to the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body immediately? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: To go to the Dispute Settlement Body would be time-consuming and costly. Inscription will be faster. It has worked for us before with other countries. We note that the disputes panel some time ago found in favour of the US in a very similar case it took against Japan although no apples have yet flowed as a result. A ruling in a subsequent dispute over compliance with that first ruling is expected shortly. This will be an important precedent for litigation between New Zealand and Australia and the present move will improve our chances of success should we have to go to that extent ourselves. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister agree that his answer is really no help at all to apple growers in New Zealand because taking this matter just to the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures adds another delay in the whole procedure and inevitably the Australians will make sure that the matter ends up at the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body; so why do we not take it there now as all the apple growers of New Zealand are demanding instead of caving in to the Australians once again? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second question is that I have consulted with the leadership of the New Zealand apple industry and it supports the actions being taken.