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

On 25 August, Senator Xenophon asked me questions about apple imports from New Zealand. I seek leave to incorporate the answers in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The answer read as follows

QUESTION FROM SENATOR XENOPHON ON 25 AUGUST 2011.

Question: Minister, following on from the answers you provided yesterday in relation to the importation of New Zealand apples, did the Government receive any advice as to the withdrawal of concessions New Zealand would be entitled to impose in the event that import permits were not able to be issued by 17 August 2011? Who was the advice from and what was the nature of the advice?

Answer: The WTO Trade Law Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provided regular legal advice to the government on New Zealand's rights under the WTO Agreement in the event that Australia failed to comply with the outcome in the apples dispute. This included advice on New Zealand's right to suspend concessions in respect of Australian exports to New Zealand.

Under WTO rules, New Zealand would initially need to target its retaliatory measures at exports of Australian goods (rather than services). New Zealand would have the discretion to suspend concessions on any product it wished, up to the value of the authorised retaliation. New Zealand is an important export market of Australia. In 2010, Australia's total goods-exports to New Zealand were worth $8 billion across 1153 product categories.

Question: Minister, what steps would New Zealand be required to take to withdraw any concessions?

Answer: Under WTO rules, New Zealand would need to seek authorisation from the WTO Dispute Settlement Body under Article 22 on the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes to suspend concessions.

Question: Doesn't that answer assume that what WTO agreements do is to authorise the imposition of sanctions? Don't they just authorise that concessions no longer apply?

Answer: Article 22 authorises the suspension of concessions in certain cases. The suspension of concessions is often referred to as the imposition of retaliation or sanctions.