Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. Overnight, the government has alleged that preventing New Zealand apple imports could result in retaliatory action from New Zealand under the WTO rules. However, could the minister outline which tariffs New Zealand could apply against Australia which are consistent with the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Agreement, ANZCERTA? Is it not correct that New Zealand could not impose retaliatory tariffs because to do so would be in breach of ANZCERTA because it is not a 'covered agreement' for the purposes of the WTO disputes settlement understanding?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that this is a trade related matter. Not agreeing to the WTO rules—the very same rules under which we trade our goods and services over­seas—would expose Australian exporters and Australian trade to retaliatory action from New Zealand. Australia exported some­thing in the order of $8 billion in goods and services to New Zealand in 2010. New Zealand could retaliate against any Austra­lian product and they can raise their tariffs on Australian goods up to 100 per cent. We have an issue which could encompass not only Australian farms but also businesses. New Zealand could choose to target agri­cultural goods—the $110 million of sugar we send to New Zealand, the $10 million of citrus fruit we send to New Zealand, the $90 million of pig-meat we send to New Zealand and the $18 million of beef we send to New Zealand.

First and foremost it is important to acknowledge this: the department's biosecurity staff have developed a set of import conditions to manage the risks associated with this trade. Whether people believe that the WTO got it right or wrong, the department has conducted a science based review which is broadly supported by at least three state government biosecurity agencies. Whatever people think of the World Trade Organisation or the merits of the case, there is a bipartisan commitment in this place between the government and the opposition to abide by the international terms— (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I do not think the question was answered. Nevertheless I ask a supplementary question. Minister, what compensation will the government pay to apple and pear growers once fire blight comes to Australia as a result of this decision to allow apples to be imported from New Zealand?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. First and foremost, as I said, it is important to acknow­ledge that the department's biosecurity staff have developed a set of import conditions. So there are import conditions to manage the risk associated with this trade. There has already been an incursion of—this is a very early point of order—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very early because it is very important. Mr President, my point of order goes to relevance—a very important point of relevance. The question asked 'what compensation', Minister. That is what every­body wants to know.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on the point of order. Senator Ludwig's answer was absolutely to the point of the question. It is utterly time wasting of Senator Joyce to just stand up and try to make a simple political point because he cannot get the answer that he wants from Senator Ludwig. Senator Ludwig could not have been more relevant to the question in his answer so far and he still has 37 seconds left. It is a ridiculous point of order designed to waste time.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I am aware of the fact that the minister has 37 seconds left. I am listening closely to the minister's answer and the minister is aware of what the question is.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1999, when Australia lost its case in the WTO on the importation of salmon products, guess who said that the government would not indemni­fy the industry against an incursion? It was Mr John Howard. We have pest and disease incursion arrangements in place to address incursions. That is what we have done. These arrangements place obligations on govern­ment, state and federal—and in certain circumstances on industry themselves—to manage the post-border, the border and the pre-border arrangements. That is what we have in place.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the government confirm that effectively its only contingency plan to contain fire blight when it comes to Australia, not eradicate it, is for farmers to use the antibiotic, streptomycin, which health experts such as Professor Peter Collignon, ANU's professor of infectious diseases, have warned could have serious public health implications?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has a ready been an incursion of fire blight in this country and that was without any trade in apples from New Zealand or any other country. We managed it then. We have in place pest and disease incursion arrangements to address these very circumstances. These arrange­ments place an obligation on governments, state and federal, when these things occur. But, most importantly, it is about preventing its importation, and that is why we have four conditions on this importation of New Zealand apples to manage the risk of a range of diseases, as we do with every other commodity that comes across our border.

In relation to the issue surrounding streptomycin, can I just add that streptomycin is registered for use in Australian food production but it is not at this stage— (Time expired)