Proposed biosecurity 'partnerships' a can of worms

Federated Farmers is counselling the Government against forcing Government Industry Agreements (GIA) on the export agricultural sector. Not only does it create potential for a litigious environment, it could set a precedent applicable across other parts of Government.

“The downstream ramifications of GIA’s on everyone in the primary sector have not been thought through,” says John Hartnell, Federated Farmers Biosecurity spokesperson.

“Making the primary sector share biosecurity incursion costs raises big questions about culpability if GIA’s are introduced.

“As any GIA would be triggered by a biosecurity failure, financial and legal responsibility will fall somewhere. Industry and insurers would undoubtedly look to recoup what could be billions of dollars from those responsible for the failure.

“GIA’s are a blank cheque with Government left to fill in the sum that the primary sector would fund. It doesn’t matter if you produce for the domestic market or not, industry would be left to fund the clean up including compensation and on-going costs.

“Going further, will GIA’s herald a move by Government to introduce cost sharing into other parts of Government, such as education, health and social services?

“Federated Farmers has two solutions to improve biosecurity delivery and funding.

“Last year, we suggested an independent Biosecurity Conducts Authority to investigate post-border biosecurity incursions and complaints against the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ).

“Such an authority would examine systems, processes and people looking to close gaps. We do this with the Police and air traffic accidents, why not something as important as biosecurity, given any failure could financially cripple New Zealand.

“In late April, Federated Farmers suggested an alternative to these GIA’s. That being a dedicated low level charge on sea and air containers landed in New Zealand, along with dry cargo, imported vehicles and passengers. If put into an EQC type fund, it will provide the immediate means to deal with future biosecurity incursions.

“We must recognise that 100 percent of the risk comes from imports while 0 percent is from exports.

“The specious argument against such a low-level charge on imports is that you can’t forward fund things that may never happen and that it would violate WTO rules. Yet we forward fund things all the time with levies on home insurance, motor vehicles and even ACC.

“As for the WTO, I don’t believe a dedicated $50 levy on a container containing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods would be anti-trade given New Zealand’s unique disease and pest profile.

“It is sometimes hard to get unity in agriculture, but with these GIA’s the Government has unified almost the entire primary sector in opposition,” Mr Hartnell concluded.

For a copy of Federated Farmers submission on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, please click here.