Australia will appeal a World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling that tough restrictions on the importation of New Zealand apples are unduly restrictive on trade.
A decision by the WTO's panel of independent arbitrators recommended overnight "that the dispute settlement body request Australia to bring the inconsistent measures ... into conformity with its obligations".
But Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said on Tuesday Australia would appeal the decision to the WTO's appellate body.
"We are disappointed that the WTO panel found that the import risk analysis underpinning Australia's requirements for New Zealand apples is not sufficiently supported by scientific evidence and also that the requirements are unduly trade-restrictive," Mr Burke said in a statement.
"The relevant import requirements are aimed at addressing the quarantine risks associated with New Zealand apples in relation to the diseases fire blight and European canker, and the insect apple leafcurling midge."
Mr Burke said: "There are adequate grounds to appeal the panel's decision."
If you're looking for a quick glance at what happened, but don't want to slog through hundreds of pages, here's a brief excerpt from the report that shows the kind of thing the Panel found problematic with Australia's Import Risk Analysis (IRA):
(a) Alleged overestimation for importation step 1
7.247 Importation step 1 represents the likelihood that the relevant pest is present in the source orchards.
(i) Summary of the Parties' arguments
7.248 Regarding importation step 1 for fire blight, New Zealand argues that the IRA's estimation that Erwinia amylovora would be present in 100 per cent of source orchards in New Zealand is incorrect and constitutes a "significant overestimation". In New Zealand's view, this conclusion is "based on a misreading of scientific literature and incorrect assumptions [and is] not supported by the scientific evidence".
...
(ii) The Panel's analysis
...
7.259 In conclusion, the Panel finds that the IRA's estimation that Erwinia amylovora will always be present in the source orchards in New Zealand is not sufficiently supported by the scientific evidence that the IRA relied upon and, accordingly, is not coherent and objective.
