When an apple is not simply an apple

If there’s one thing Australia is bad at, it’s losing. This applies to trade just as much as sport. Australian apple growers have been whingeing to politicians and the media in recent weeks, upset that they may finally have to compete with New Zealand apples. Since 1921, Australia has imposed a blanket ban on our apples, supposedly to prevent the spread of fire blight disease.

However, there is one problem with this reason: it is a load of rubbish.

Scientific evidence now makes it clear that fire blight is not actually spread by mature fruit. This is why the World Trade Organisation ruled in 2003 it is not an acceptable reason to block imports. Australia responded by simply ignoring the ruling.

Now, even Biosecurity Australia has been forced to face the facts. It admits that New Zealand apples should be allowed, but with excessively onerous conditions. Growers will be forced to pay for costly inspections and treatments, making it far too expensive for most to afford.

Despite these ridiculously tough conditions, it is still not good enough for the Australian fruit industry, which continues to claim it knows better than the scientists do.

Tellingly, Australian growers admit they are unlikely to win an appeal against the decision because they cannot show that a body of scientific evidence has been ignored. Instead, growers say they will launch a political campaign to target Government decision makers.

And don’t be surprised if it works. Australian MPs, especially from the rural-based National Party, can be notoriously protectionist. The irony of their stance escapes them whenever they berate the United States for blocking lamb imports.

In reality, it is political science, not biological science, driving Australia’s actions. Just like underarm bowling, the rules are stretched (and ignored) because of blatant self-interest. In the words of former New Zealand Agriculture Minister Jim Sutton, “Australians cheat in matters of biosecurity, and . . . the concept of honest science has no meaning there.”

The New Zealand Government is considering taking a complaint to the WTO, and so they should. Nothing else seems to be working, and it is a case they would almost certainly win given the 2003 precedent. Perhaps even the threat will be enough to bring about a change.

A case brought against Australia would be a bad look for a country which founded the Cairns Group to push for more liberal trade in agriculture. You can hardly expect the big trade culprits (the US, EU and Japan) to treat you fairly when you won’t practise what you preach in your own backyard.

If Australia doesn’t want to abide by the rules of agreements like CER and the WTO, then the answer is obvious: don’t sign up for them.

The situation with bananas is just as bad. Cyclone Larry destroyed most of Australia’s banana crop in February, and with imports prohibited, the price has skyrocketed to as high as $A14 a kilo. Forget BMWs and yachts, bananas are the new status symbol among Australians.

Once again, it is spurious biosecurity reasoning which bans imports from the Philippines and South America. These measures can be just as effective as tariffs in protecting inefficient local industries.

Former head of Biosecurity Australia Digby Gascoine made no friends when he noted, “we would still be better off if we paid all the banana growers in Australia to sit on the beach for the rest of their lives, and ate imported bananas instead”. Of course, he is absolutely right.

Australia’s double standard on trade is bad news for New Zealand, but the biggest losers are Australian consumers. They are the ones being ripped off, missing out on the choice and quality in fruit that other countries take for granted.

Phil Rennie is a New Zealand policy analyst with Australia’s Centre for Independent Studies.