Australia                                  ...

Australia                                                                                    

Australian Federal Court Hears Government’s Pork Import Appeal

On August 23 and 24, a three-judge panel of the Australian Federal Court, heard the appeal of the government’s Director of Quarantine against an earlier court judgment affecting the import of pork into Australia. The Federal Court also heard the Notice of Contention filed by Australian Pork Limited (APL).

The government had filed a notice of motion seeking an expedited hearing of the appeal. Written comments related to the appeal were requested from the Director of Quarantine’s Counsel by August 30.  APL may provide written responses to those comments by September 2. It is not known when the Federal Court will issue its decision on the appeal, but it is expected to take at least a month, and more likely several months.  

The Director of Quarantine’s appeal was based on several grounds:  the Court was wrong to conclude that part of the risk assessment underpinning the policy for importing pork into Australia was flawed; the Court was wrong in finding the risk management reasoning to be “unreasonable,” and the policy determination made by the Director of Quarantine could not be reviewed under the provisions of the “Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act.”

The Notice of Contention filed by the APL took a more piecemeal approach, selecting a range of issues that focused on where it believes the risk of importing was understated.  APL emphasized consequences, criticizing the risk assessment for not providing complete information on economic loss or loss of jobs as a consequence of Australia detecting Post Weaning Multi-Systemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS). APL argued that the risk model was wrongly constructed, it understated risk and it made it unlikely that appropriate risk levels would be found.  

Following the outcome either party could appeal to Australia’s High Court, but it would most likely take the case only if a new issue of law is introduced.  

USMEF expects that there will be no change to the current import permit structure and trade will continue throughout the court deliberations. 

Suspected PMWS Case In Australia 

The court case hinges in theory on Australia’s claim to be free of PMWS. One suspected case in New South Wales was ruled out in July. The results are inconclusive in a remaining suspect case in South Australia. The investigation continues and restrictions on animal movement have been imposed.  Australia is bringing in international experts to participate in the investigation, and it is likely to be several months before the investigation is concluded.  

Australia                                                                                    

Australian Federal Court Hears Government’s Pork Import Appeal

On August 23 and 24, a three-judge panel of the Australian Federal Court, heard the appeal of the government’s Director of Quarantine against an earlier court judgment affecting the import of pork into Australia. The Federal Court also heard the Notice of Contention filed by Australian Pork Limited (APL).

The government had filed a notice of motion seeking an expedited hearing of the appeal. Written comments related to the appeal were requested from the Director of Quarantine’s Counsel by August 30.  APL may provide written responses to those comments by September 2. It is not known when the Federal Court will issue its decision on the appeal, but it is expected to take at least a month, and more likely several months.  

The Director of Quarantine’s appeal was based on several grounds:  the Court was wrong to conclude that part of the risk assessment underpinning the policy for importing pork into Australia was flawed; the Court was wrong in finding the risk management reasoning to be “unreasonable,” and the policy determination made by the Director of Quarantine could not be reviewed under the provisions of the “Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act.”

The Notice of Contention filed by the APL took a more piecemeal approach, selecting a range of issues that focused on where it believes the risk of importing was understated.  APL emphasized consequences, criticizing the risk assessment for not providing complete information on economic loss or loss of jobs as a consequence of Australia detecting Post Weaning Multi-Systemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS). APL argued that the risk model was wrongly constructed, it understated risk and it made it unlikely that appropriate risk levels would be found.  

Following the outcome either party could appeal to Australia’s High Court, but it would most likely take the case only if a new issue of law is introduced.  

USMEF expects that there will be no change to the current import permit structure and trade will continue throughout the court deliberations. 

Suspected PMWS Case In Australia 

The court case hinges in theory on Australia’s claim to be free of PMWS. One suspected case in New South Wales was ruled out in July. The results are inconclusive in a remaining suspect case in South Australia. The investigation continues and restrictions on animal movement have been imposed.  Australia is bringing in international experts to participate in the investigation, and it is likely to be several months before the investigation is concluded.