Aust to appeal NZ apple decision

Australia will appeal a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling that tough restrictions on the importation of New Zealand apples are unduly restrictive on trade.

A decision by the WTO's panel of independent arbitrators recommended overnight "that the dispute settlement body request Australia to bring the inconsistent measures ... into conformity with its obligations".

But Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said on Tuesday Australia would appeal the decision to the WTO's appellate body.

"We are disappointed that the WTO panel found that the import risk analysis underpinning Australia's requirements for New Zealand apples is not sufficiently supported by scientific evidence and also that the requirements are unduly trade-restrictive," Mr Burke said in a statement.

"The relevant import requirements are aimed at addressing the quarantine risks associated with New Zealand apples in relation to the diseases fire blight and European canker, and the insect apple leafcurling midge."

Mr Burke said: "There are adequate grounds to appeal the panel's decision."

Australia banned imports of New Zealand apples in the 1920s. The government lifted the outright ban four years ago, but in early 2007 imposed conditions that New Zealand said were so strict it made its exports uneconomic.

On Tuesday, Mr Burke said the existing measures for New Zealand apples would remain in place "pending the outcome of the appeal".

What a wonderful idea.  Bring in apples from NZ, what a good way to support the Australian apple farmers.

Free trade benefits everyone. We can't go misapplying our quarantine regulations as back door protectionism.

Any farmer who expects Australians to pay more for a product just to keep them in business does not deserve our protection.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

Free trade benefits everyone. We can't go misapplying our quarantine regulations as back door protectionism. Any farmer who expects Australians to pay more for a product just to keep them in business does not deserve our protection.

It's not about 'protectionism' freediver...
NZ does have disease that affect apples, mainly fire blight and European Canker........

So far, Australia has managed to stop these diseases from infecting our apple trees...

It really is a case of legitimate quarantine concerns....

Not according to the WTO. There have been plenty of cases of Australian farmers pushing for the misapplication of quarantine regulation.

And besides, you seem to be changing the basis of your criticism.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:20am:

Not according to the WTO. There have been plenty of cases of Australian farmers pushing for the misapplication of quarantine regulation. And besides, you seem to be changing the basis of your criticism.

No not really...
I'm against things that stuff up the small farmers/businesses..

Like risking the importing of a disease that could wipe out ALL the apple orchards around Tumut..
And importing potentially diseased beef from Europe when Australia is one of the only countries in the World without BSE(Mad Cow Disease).

And I was against the importation of Californian frozen orange juice concentrate........and look at the result of that...

Thousands of hectares of orange trees plowed down and burned because it would cost more to pick the fruit than the farmer would get for selling it....

Quote:

I'm against things that stuff up the small farmers/businesses..

But it is reality that stuffs up small farmers. Are you against reality?


Quote:

And I was against the importation of Californian frozen orange juice concentrate........and look at the result of that...

What result?


Quote:

Thousands of hectares of orange trees plowed down and burned because it would cost more to pick the fruit than the farmer would get for selling it....

This sounds like old fashioned protectionism to me - again nothing to do with quaratnine issues.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:34am:

Quote: I'm against things that stuff up the small farmers/businesses.. But it is reality that stuffs up small farmers. Are you against reality? [quote]And I was against the importation of Californian frozen orange juice concentrate........and look at the result of that...

What result?


Quote:

Thousands of hectares of orange trees plowed down and burned because it would cost more to pick the fruit than the farmer would get for selling it....

This sounds like old fashioned protectionism to me - again nothing to do with quaratnine issues.[/quote]


How is it 'reality' to import diseased fruit???
Free Trade Agreements must still bow before Quarantine Laws....

I'm on your side gizmo.

As an island, we must protect ourselves.

NZ has the best fruit in the world.  Australia should become East Island of NZ so that we can appease the protectionsits and people who want quality fruit.

Quote:

Free Trade Agreements must still bow before Quarantine Laws....

Sure, but you keep changing your mind about why you are criticising free trade. For example, can you explain the quarantine issues in this example you gave?


Quote:

Thousands of hectares of orange trees plowed down and burned because it would cost more to pick the fruit than the farmer would get for selling it....

I remember eating NZ fruit and vegetables in Asia during the eighties and nineties.
There is nothing wrong with it, and their export quality is as good as ours.
This is just trade protectionism and nothing more.
Either we have a free trade agreement, or we don't.
Trying to have a foot on both sides of the fence won't work.

wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

An Apple A Day Keeps The Doctor Away.

It is maybe true foe organic apples. Can they export them.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 10:33am:

Quote: Free Trade Agreements must still bow before Quarantine Laws.... Sure, but you keep changing your mind about why you are criticising free trade. For example, can you explain the quarantine issues in this example you gave? [quote]Thousands of hectares of orange trees plowed down and burned because it would cost more to pick the fruit than the farmer would get for selling it....

[/quote]

Because the violation of the quarantine could result in the same actions (i.e destroying thousands of apple trees) as the concentrated orange juice thing did....

Different reasons, true, but the same result.....

And isn't it the Governments job, to 'protect' and encourage agriculture and employment????

Why is it so wrong to want to keep viable, profitable industry safe?

Quote:

And I was against the importation of Californian frozen orange juice concentrate........and look at the result of that...

Why were you against it again?


Quote:

Why is it so wrong to want to keep viable, profitable industry safe?

Nothing wrong with that. It's when people start confusing the protection of unviable industry against competition and protection against imported disease that you need to look closely at the motive. That's what the WTO is doing.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 1:03pm:

Quote: And I was against the importation of Californian frozen orange juice concentrate........and look at the result of that... Why were you against it again? [quote]Why is it so wrong to want to keep viable, profitable industry safe?

Nothing wrong with that. It's when people start confusing the protection of unviable industry against competition and protection against imported disease that you need to look closely at the motive. That's what the WTO is doing.[/quote]

I was against the concentrate import because it was unfair competition

The subsidies to the citrus industry in california (and to agriculture in general in the US) are such that the Australian citrus growers had no hope of competing fairly with the import....

So American taxpayers are subsidising our brekky juice? Sounds like a good deal to me - for Aussies. Certainly not a good reason to respond with even more protectionism.

The rational way to deal with the problem is to campaign for a level playing field, not look for every excuse to try to tilt the field in our favour. Otherwise you get everyone doing that and you all you end up doing is destrying free trade. Picking oranges is a poor consolation for loosing a real job.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 1:17pm:

So American taxpayers are subsidising our brekky juice? Sounds like a good deal to me - for Aussies. Certainly not a good reason to respond with even more protectionism. The rational way to deal with the problem is to campaign for a level playing field, not look for every excuse to try to tilt the field in our favour. Otherwise you get everyone doing that and you all you end up doing is destrying free trade. Picking oranges is a poor consolation for loosing a real job.

Is also a good deal for all the citrus farmers who've lost their homes and livelyhoods???

The basic idea behind trade should be: I have too much wheat, and need corn.....you have too much corn and want wheat.....I'll swap you wheat for corn..
Correct?

Does the idea of "We'll burn ALL our wheat farms and then by wheat from YOU...make any sense????

If the 'playing field' had been level, then the FTA with the US would have been ok.....
But since the US agriculture gets 33% of it's income from subsidies and the Aus agriculture gets 0% of it's income from subsidies..
Then the frozen concentrate had been paid for before the fruit was sold to the manufacture and was effectively free......How can some poor orange grower in Leeton or Griffith compete fairly with THAT???

Protectionism isn't a bad thing, in itself.....ok it can be carried too far sometimes (if it's used to artifically prop up a non-viable industry)....but it's NOT a reason to destroy a perfectly viable industry, just so you can say 'Look, we're NOT being 'protectionist'.....

Quote:

and the Aus agriculture gets 0% of it's income from subsidies

Ever heard of 'drought relief'. Or maybe that isn't a subsidy because farmers can't be expected to factor droughts into their business plan....


Quote:

Protectionism isn't a bad thing, in itself.....ok it can be carried too far sometimes (if it's used to artifically prop up a non-viable industry)....but it's NOT a reason to destroy a perfectly viable industry, just so you can say 'Look, we're NOT being 'protectionist'.....

A lot of it is a bad idea. So is a little. Undermining free trade is always a bad idea. It doesn't just become a bad idea when you reach a certain level.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:

Quote: and the Aus agriculture gets 0% of it's income from subsidies Ever heard of 'drought relief'. Or maybe that isn't a subsidy because farmers can't be expected to factor droughts into their business plan.... [quote]Protectionism isn't a bad thing, in itself.....ok it can be carried too far sometimes (if it's used to artifically prop up a non-viable industry)....but it's NOT a reason to destroy a perfectly viable industry, just so you can say 'Look, we're NOT being 'protectionist'.....

A lot of it is a bad idea. So is a little. Undermining free trade is always a bad idea. It doesn't just become a bad idea when you reach a certain level.[/quote]


So what you're saying is that we should just give the arse to ALL the quarantine regulations that Australia has instigated in the last 150-200 years, because those quarantine protections might 'interfer' with 'Free Trade'?????

No. Merely that we should limit it to genuine quarantine issues and not abuse it for back door protectionism. This is the approach the WTO is taking also.

freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 3:56pm:

No. Merely that we should limit it to genuine quarantine issues and not abuse it for back door protectionism. This is the approach the WTO is taking also.

And fireblight IS a genuine quarantine issue...