Government policies themselves a threat to biosecurity

The latest fruit fly discovery underlines that New Zealand’s biosecurity is being put at risk, writes

carried by humans. In the latter case it comes from formal tourist and visitor routes, for example, through airports or through informal entry via private boats, as has been suggested as a source of the recent fruit fly incursion near Whangarei. The present massive epidemic of Queensland fruit fly in Australia made this incursion almost inevitable.

The prime minister has rightly said that questions should be asked whether there are faults in our biosecurity system, and that fumigation of private yachts could be considered.

Unfortunately, John Key presides over a Government which has policies that are quite clearly putting our biosecurity at risk and which undermine the strenuous efforts by the Ministry for PrimaryIndustries (MPI) to keep us safe.

As minister of tourism Key has pushed hard for a seamless border for visitors between Australia and New Zealand. This is reducing the screening of visitors for possible insect incursions by, for example, replacing X-rays for 100 per cent of arrivals with random checks. This undermining of our biosecurity is illustrated by gung-ho statements that we are now pushing visitors through airports faster than Australia. At what cost to our biosecurity?

Increasing the number of free trade agreements is a major policy thrust of the Key Government.

MPI has been instructed to consider international trade obligations when making a biosecurity risk assessment, while the Government applies tremendous pressure for more free trade agreements. The Government spent years in litigation against NZPork to force through importation of raw pig meat. The industry believes this poses a risk of importing a very nasty virus disease, PRRS, but the ministry believes there is only a ‘‘slight’’ risk.

The honey industry is also fighting to restrict the importation of honey from Australia which they believe poses unacceptable disease risks. This case is ongoing.

Another Government policy that must have adverse effects on staff performance involves the continual restructuring of departments. MPI (formerly MAF) – responsible for biosecurity – has been restructured in most years during the past decade. Presumably restructuring will improve performance, but the widely criticised conflict in a department which contains both policy and regulatory functions such as food safety, animal welfare, trade issues and biosecurity remains unchanged.

At a time when we are in a biosecurity crisis it is extraordinary that two Government-appointed advisory committees have made recommendations that effectively gut biosecurity research. The much-touted science challenges were required by Science and Innovation Minister Steven Joyce to be reduced from 11 to 10. This was achieved by combining the biosecurity and biodiversity challenges, which effectively at least halved the funding available for both areas which are seriously under-resourced.

The final nail in the coffin of biosecurity research has been the decision of the Tertiary Education Commission to stop funding the annual grant of $3.4 million for the Bio-Protection Research Centre at Lincoln, which specialises in long-term research on biosecurity. It is extraordinary that in such a tiny country the Government and the bureaucracy seem to be disconnected from what is going on in our major industries.

A collapse of our horticultural exports – worth $4 billion a year – or an outbreak of foot and mouth – which would cost up to $15b – through a biosecurity breach would destroy our economy for a generation.

John Lancashire is a former president of the NZ Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science.