Aussie apple report makes sour eating

Jim Anderton (left) is displeased with the news from Australian High Commissioner Allan Hawke. Picture / Mark Mitchell

Smiles turned to scowls yesterday after Government ministers were handed a long-awaited Australian report on the risk of New Zealand apple imports.

The draft import risk analysis does not look promising for growers seeking to overturn an 84-year-old ban.

The New Zealand Government said last night it had "serious concerns" about the report released by Biosecurity Australia.

Although the nearly 600-page report recommends access to all states except Western Australia, it contains conditions considered severe and possibly uneconomic for growers.

Two previous draft import risk reports - one in 2000 and the other last year - had similar conditions.

Government ministers Jim Anderton, Jim Sutton and Phil Goff said in a joint statement that the release of the latest report was a small step and was to be welcomed but they had serious concerns about the conditions, which include disinfecting packing houses with chlorine and inspecting orchards.

Kiwi apples were banned in 1921 because of Australian fears they could transmit the plant disease fire blight. The ban has come under increasing criticism in recent years with claims that it is based on dubious science.

The report was handed to the ministers by Australian High Commissioner Allan Hawke at a media conference at the Beehive yesterday.

Pipfruit New Zealand chief executive Peter Beaven said he was disappointed by the analysis as Biosecurity Australia had largely ignored a 2003 World Trade Organisation case on fire blight involving Japan and the United States.

The WTO ruled that fire blight was not transferred to mature apples.

"After seven years of fighting, this is a very disappointing outcome," said Mr Beaven.

"Whatever happens, there will be no New Zealand apples available to the Australian consumer next year."

It could take another year or two before the final import risk analysis is issued.

Submissions on the draft close on March 30.

Last night, the Government said "all options remained open". In June it said it would take the ban to the WTO.

Said Mr Goff: "We know - and the scientific evidence shows - that there is no way that a mature apple is going to spread fire blight into Australia."

On Wednesday, Mr Anderton said New Zealand was "at the end of its tether" and had "lost patience".

In June, apple-growers protested outside the Australian High Commission building in Wellington over the continued ban.

 

Fruit dispute

What is it about?
* New Zealand apples have been banned by Australia since 1921 because of claims they could carry the plant disease fire blight.

Has anything changed?
* The latest Australian risk analysis was made public yesterday but the process could still take two years.

What's the problem?
* The analysis supposedly allows access, except Western Australia, but imposes conditions that may make imports uneconomic.

What does the ban cost?
* Growers estimate it costs them $20 million-30 million a year.