Australian growers deaf to WTO ruling

By LIAM DANN AND NZPA

New Zealand apple growers are on a collision course with Australia as they push for trade barriers to be lifted.

Yesterday, Australian apple growers said there was no parallel between a decision allowing US apples into Japan and New Zealand's bid to send apples to Australia.

But a new report by law firm MinterEllisonRuddWatts suggests Australian growers are deluding themselves.

A World Trade Organisation panel ruled last week that Japan, which is free of the fruit disease fireblight, could no longer use quarantine rules to restrict apple imports from the United States.

New Zealand apple growers, whose produce has been shut out of Australia for 80 years because of fireblight, hailed the ruling as a major breakthrough, saying they would now target the Australian market.

Fireblight, a virulent disease which affects apples, is endemic in New Zealand but not present in Australia. Similarly it is present in the United States but not Japan.

The heart of the dispute is whether fireblight can be transferred by the apple fruit itself.

Apple and Pear Australia's fireblight taskforce chairman John Corboy said studies of the risk of importing fruit from countries such as New Zealand were, at best, inconclusive.

"After reading the 280-page WTO report, it's clear that are no direct parallels between this decision and New Zealand's bid to send potentially fireblight-carrying apples to this country," he said in a statement.

But New Zealand growers were still confident that the ruling did apply to the transtasman dispute, said Phil Alison, chairman of Pipfruit Growers New Zealand.

Access to Australian markets could be worth about $40 million to New Zealand growers, he said.

A report by MinterEllisonRuddWatts' international trade law group has concluded that the US case against Japan was won on points that are "almost identical" to those in the dispute between Australia and New Zealand.

Report co-author Murray Denyer said denying any link sounded like "wishful thinking" on behalf of the Australians.

The WTO panel's finding had serious implications for Australia's proposed restrictions on New Zealand apple imports, he said.

The Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has produced a draft report with 11 measures that must be undertaken in New Zealand before imports can resume.

Five of the most restrictive - such as the requirement for orchards to be surrounded by a 50m detection zone and inspected three times a year - are almost exactly the same as those that Japan had imposed on the US. They were deemed to be "without sufficient scientific evidence" by the WTO.

Even if the Australians disputed the specifics in the case, the WTO panel had made a significant ruling in principle, Denyer said.

"The panel's firm view is that over 200 years of experience and a very great deal of scientific research does not support there being any significant risk that fireblight can be transmitted on apple fruit," the report said. "This is something that New Zealand officials have been trying to tell the Australians for years."

What happens next

* The Japanese are expected to appeal against the WTO decision, though it is unlikely to be overturned.

* If the decision stands New Zealand is expected to put diplomatic pressure on the Australian Government to resume importing New Zealand apples.

* If the Australians refuse, New Zealand must take its own case against them to the WTO.

* That could take up to 18 months to complete and could be followed by another appeal process of six months.