June 2, 2005

 

USDA: Australian pork imports in doubt following court decision

 

 

On May 27, 2005, a Federal Court in Sydney handed down a decision in a legal challenge of a recent change to quarantine conditions for imported pork.  The judge in the case was extremely critical of the methodology used in a final Import Risk Analysis (IRA) and the subsequent policy decision by the Australian Director of Quarantine to adopt new import conditions for pork. 

 

The pig meat Import Risk Analysis (IRA)

 

In February 2004, Biosecurity Australia (the government body responsible for quarantine policy, including conducting IRAs) released a Final Import Risk Analysis Report, entitled 'Generic IRA for Pig Meat', that proposed changes to import conditions for pork.  The final pig meat IRA, along with other matters related to it, can be accessed on Biosecurity Australia's website at:

http://www.affa.gov.au/content/publications.cfm?ObjectID=EAA47406-D373-4205-AC85A3D6A8AA7046

 

On May 10, 2004, following a public comment and appeal period for the IRA, the Australian Director of Quarantine formally made the policy determination to accept the recommended import conditions outlined in the pig meat IRA.  This policy determination paved the way for the United States, and other countries that could meet the IRA conditions, to supply pork to Australia.

 

The Court Case and Decision

 

In July 2004, Australian Pork Limited (APL), representing Australia's pork producers, and Windridge Farms Pty Ltd, a pork producer, filed a case in the federal court in Sydney questioning the recommended control measures for imported pork outlined in the final IRA and the issuance of an import permit for pork from the United States under the new import conditions. 

 

The basis of the case was how the government dealt with protecting Australian pig farmers from the risk of contamination by PMWS, which was already proclaimed to be a 'quarantineable' animal disease in Australia.  Challenges to the government's decisions were made on four grounds:  error of law; failure to take into account a relevant consideration; unreasonableness; and no evidence.  All these challenges were based on alleged deficiencies in the IRA.

 

On May 27, 2005, the court's decision was released.  The judge found the IRA decisions, and the subsequent issuance of an import permit under the revised import conditions, 'unreasonable', given that the IRA panel's reasoning was unsupported by any fact, scientific evidence or scientific expertise.  The judge also noted that 'no evidence' grounds could also be argued. 

 

APL's Reaction

 

APL issued a press release on May 27, following the public release of the court's findings.  APL characterized the decision as a "win" and called on Biosecurity Australia to undertake the necessary research into effective measures to protect Australia from PMWS.  Furthermore, APL will be asking the government to agree to: 1) immediately stop the importation of pig meat from PMWS affected countries; and 2) immediately prevent any further processing of imported pig meat from PMWS affected countries already in Australia.

 

Both Sides Criticize the Quarantine System

 

Australia's quarantine system, and very conservative import measures, has been soundly criticized by many trading partners and is currently the focus of challenges at the World Trade Organization (WTO). 

 

Domestic interests, in addition to the pork industry, have also been critical of Australia's quarantine policy.  Analysts fear that restricting imports would increase pork prices for consumers, retailers and manufacturers, and would not encourage domestic pig producers and processors to be competitive in the market environment.

 

 

For the full USDA report, click here