Geography
Home > Geography > People & Economic Activity > Local Case Study > Tasmanian salmon
ABC Transcript 2
Canadian salmon throws Tasmania into states’ rights struggle
PM – Tuesday March 21, 2000 6:10
MARK COLVIN: A big State's rights fight is developing between Tasmania and the Commonwealth over the apparently humdrum issue of salmon imports. On one side, the Government in Hobart pledging to fight to the death for Tasmania's status as a producer of clean, green, disease-free food.
On the other side, accusations that Tasmania's just using quarantine regulations as a cover for protectionism to prop up its salmon fanning industry. The Tasmanian Premier is absolutely refusing to back down on the issue.
JIM BACON: It's absolutely legal, exactly the same as we do not allow fruit or vegetables into Tasmania because of the threat of fruit fly and other diseases. We're certainly not going to back off that. We're not going to back off our position about importing fish into Tasmania.
MARK COLVIN: We'll hear more from Jim Bacon in a moment. But it’s hard tonight to see how a resolution is going to be possible. The story revolves around a World Trade Organisation ruling allowing Canadian salmon imports into Australia. The Federal Government has decided not to appeal against that ruling. Bronwyn Adcock's report begins our coverage.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: The World Trade Organisation ruled that Australia should allow imports of Canadian salmon, and today the Federal Government agreed. According to WTO rules, Tasmania's decision to continue blocking imports now puts retaliation firmly on the agenda. Wayne Robson from the Canadian High Commission in Canberra says while this is not the preferred option, Canada will retaliate if pushed.
WAYNE ROBSON: Canada is interested in getting access for its salmon, not in retaliation. However, if we're unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion on these negotiations, then we would move on to the stage of looking at an arbitration at the WTO over the amount of retaliation that would be allowed.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: This will affect a wide range of Australian industries, including many in the agriculture sector. If s now up to the Federal Government to either convince Tasmania to change their mind or to take them to the High Court and make them change their mind.
While Tasmania says they feel sold out by the Federal Government's decision, others are also critical of the way the Federal Government has handled negotiations with the World Trade Organisation over the issue. According to Alan Oxley, the Director of International Trade Strategies, it's possible that Tasmania's case was never even given a proper airing at the WTO.
ALAN OXLEY: The WTO ruling was pretty clear. All they wanted was clear indication that there'd been a scientific assessment, that there'd been risk assessment and that the action of Australia was consistent, and they found that none of those things were satisfied. I mean, the way we've handled this has been a shambles.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: What do you mean a "shambles"?
ALAN OXLEY: Well, AQIS, the quarantine inspection body, in the period of 12 months issued two separate reports on the same subject. One said the salmon could come in, the other said it couldn't. Now, if you're sitting on the other side and you say, "Do these people know what they're doing," you'd have to conclude they don't.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: So you think that Australia didn't put a good case?
ALAN OXLEY: Yes, that's right, we didn't put a good case. I mean, I'm not sure really why it was that AQIS was able to issue two separate - two different findings in a period of 12 months. I suspect there might have been a bit of political interference. And it just generates suspicions that we're playing around with this in order to keep the product out.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: So how do you think that could have affected the outcome?
ALAN OXLEY: Well, it's possible - it may be possible that there actually was a case for Tasmania. Because we never actually put it up plainly, clearly and coherently, it never got an airing.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: The main area of dispute between Tasmania and the Federal Government is a question of science. Tasmania says their science shows ifs not safe to bring in fish without bringing in disease, and the Federal Government says it is safe. The Federal Government is relying on work done by AQ1S, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Peter Beers from AQIS.
PETER BEERS: Well, we've been working for many years, looking at the importation of salmon, and we've thoroughly canvassed all the issues and the risks that are associated with imports, and I think we've come up with the strictest quarantine requirements in the world which are consistent with our approach to quarantine.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: Is there any risk at all of disease being introduced?
PETER BEERS: I mean, with anything I think there's always a risk of things going wrong, but the risks are just so infinitesimally small that they're really negligible, and that’s consistent with the approach that Australia takes to quarantine, that we accept very little risk.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: Have you actually quantified the risk?
PETER BEERS: No, we haven't quantified the risk. With all the unknowns that are there, it is impossible to do. There are just so many diseases and so many issues and lack of hard data that would provide a quantitative approach to risk management. We haven't done it that way, and that’s accepted by the international organisations. The World Organisation for Animal Health and the WTO both accept that you don't need to do quantitative risk analyses.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: But does that from a scientific point of view concern you that there are so many different kinds of diseases and they're moving so quickly, that if you can't even quantify the risk factor, how can you say there is no risk?
PETER BEERS: Well, I think as I said earlier, we haven't said that there is no risk, we've just said that the risk is very small. Product is moving around the world all the time in very large quantities, and there is no evidence at all that any disease has spread through product for human consumption.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: Could you guarantee, for example, Tasmanian salmon producers that they won't get any diseases?
PETER BEERS: I think it's very hard to ask for guarantees. There are no positives or absolute guarantees on anything, but I think we can say with confidence that the level of risk is infinitesimally small.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: AQIS though changed their view on this, I understand. There was one report. that said we should not allow the importation of salmon:, and then approximately 12 months later the position changed and said there could be the importation of salmon.
PETER BEERS: No - in December 1996, AQIS put out a report that said there is a small risk of disease introduction with salmon and that we couldn't devise measures to allow the importation that would be consistent with our level of protection. We revisited-that analysis and in July last year after thorough revision of all the facts, decided that it was possible, provided we put these ten measures in place and they would provide a level of protection that was consistent with Australia’s needs.
BRONWYN ADCOCK: Was there any political pressure to change your view on this?
PETER BEERS: No.
MARK COLVIN: Peter Beers from the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, AQ1S, talking to Bronwyn Adcock.
Listen to this story
[Requires Microsoft Media Player]
Canadian salmon throws Tasmania into
states' rights struggle 
© 1999 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
|