February 10th 2001

  Buy Issue 2601

Articles from this issue:

Cover Story: US power crisis - is this where we're heading?

Editorial: Why family farms are at risk

Western Australia: Much at stake in WA poll

Queensland: Election outcome difficult to forecast

Agriculture: Inquiries to look at AQIS apple decision

Canberra Observed: Family trusts - will government bite bullet?

Straws in the Wind

The Media

Letter: Manifesto important

History: The real Frank Hardy?

Comment: Pollies protest too much Comment: Pollies protest too much

Victoria: Bracks' new social engineering Bills criticised

United States: Bush moves promptly on abortion funding

Books promotion page

Agriculture: Inquiries to look at AQIS apple decision

by Patrick J. Byrne

News Weekly, February 10, 2001
Strong industry and community protests have resulted in Biosecurity Australia, part of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), extending until February 28 the period for responses to its report that recommended allowing the importation of apples from fire blight-affected New Zealand.

Its controversial report has also prompted an inquiry by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The Senate inquiry will look into "all aspects of the consideration and assessment of proposed importation to Australia of fresh apple fruit from New Zealand" by Biosecurity Australia. The inquiry begins in February and is to report by the end of March.

At issue is not just the scientific evidence about the risk of fire blight, but also whether Biosecurity Australia/AQIS have taken unto themselves a role alien to their charter.

The agency's right to assess risk to Australian based industries from the entry of diseased product from overseas sources - and, according to its evaluation of risk, to deduce whether or not such imported goods should be allowed entry into Australia - is not in question.

What can be objected to is the view, put forward by Biosecurity Australia/AQIS and some of their supporters, that interpret quarantine laws in the light of the free trade policies which Australia, by its accession to the provisions of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), has agreed to follow.

It is this second role which has brought Biosecurity Australia/AQIS into conflict with local industries affected by its decisions, and, in some quarters, has called into question the agency's objectivity. This is an unhealthy development for both Australia and the agencies.

What needs to be clearly understood is that Australia's commitments under the WTO are the same as under the earlier General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The language from the GATT has been carried into the WTO.

Some have argued, including some in AQIS, that there are new rules and that, as a consequence, Australia can no longer maintain a policy of absolute protection against the entry of diseased products, however slight the risk.

The fact is that Australia never has, and never could have maintained such a policy, without completely cutting itself off off from the world.

However, Australia - which is free of many costly plant, animal and human diseases - has generally maintained stronger quarantine policies than countries where particular plant, animal and human diseases are widespread.

The maintenance of this policy is entirely consistent with the WTO rules, provided that the assessment of risk is objectively scientifically measured, and that our quarantine is not used as a de facto trade restriction on imports.

The Australian Government has set guidelines within which its quarantine agency should operate consistent with WTO rules. It is for the agency to operate with those guidelines without attempting to judge what does or does not meet WTO requirements.

Nevertheless, it should not be concluded that, however diligently Australia follows these rules, it cannot avoid having its policies examined within the WTO. Almost certain, in this litigious age, any country denied access to the Australian market, will contest Australian quarantine processes. That is their right and the WTO (like the earlier GATT) has established rules for handling such disputes.

Least of all should Biosecurity Australia/AQIS bow to the argument that we must relax our quarantine requirements, in order to avoid retaliation - either of a trade or quarantine kind. If they believe in the WTO, then surely, in this respect at least, it is our best protection.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am