EDITORIAL: Beekeepers are right to kick up fuss

It was inevitable - and unfortunate - that the interests of Australian apple growers and New Zealand beekeepers, both groups which are defending their territories from foreign predators, should be linked.
But one need not look far beneath the surface to see that there are genuine and major distinctions that do nothing to flatter the behaviour of our transtasman neighbours or to condemn our beekeepers.
Just as apple growers go to Canberra to argue against Australian protectionism, Kiwi beekeepers, stung by plans to allow cheap honey imports from Australia, are set to march on Wellington.
A quid pro quo's looming - our apples for their honey - but it's not as straightforward as it seems. Of course New Zealand beekeepers don't want cheap imports. But unlike the Australian apple growers, who cynically claim there is no fireblight there and, against all scientific evidence, that the disease can come from imported fruit - apiarists' fears are grounded in logic.
There can be no sustainable argument that locks out imports just on the basis of price.
Nevertheless, two important aspects in the dispute take the dispute well beyond that of a free-trade issue.
The first is the genuine risk of disease. New Zealand already contends with American foulbrood (treated by burning hives) and more recently the debilitating varroa bee mite, which has cut a swathe through apiaries. The one disease that our beekeepers dread is European foulbrood. We are an antibiotic-free oasis, having managed to keep our hives free of that highly infectious disease that annihilates bee larvae.
New Zealand apiarists have been assured that honey imports will be heated. However, there is no certainty heat treatment can be an effective preventative to EFB infection. How can we hold out against the disease when actually we invite such a risk? Rock-hard assurances are needed.
The second is that the New Zealand bees don't just run to providing honey for our toast. Much of the primary sector, from kiwifruit to clover pasture (and, ironically apples), depends on pollination by honeybees. The absence of that industrious insect would cost our productive sector billions of dollars each year.
The serious risks should therefore not be considered a cover for anti-competitive self-interest; that accusation comes too easily.
It is important our trade negotiators don't allow New Zealand beekeepers to be the sacrificial lamb that allows our apples into Australia: The cost could be far greater than the riches that the new market promises.