GARRICK BATTEN
The greatest biosecurity risk to pastoral farm industries. Extremely contagious and far worse than M. bovis. Infected animals destroyed, stringent movement controls imposed, and milk and livestock no longer processed. It’s also a greater immediate risk than climate change, as all our food exports would stop. No more export income. No more work for farm-related businesses - transport, processing, shipping and all the associated indirect servicing jobs.
After discussions with their industry bodies, farmers will sign a June Operational Agreement with the government for the best possible readiness and response to have some say in how resources are best spent. Another example of farmers as the only sector expected to carry the can for the country. This Agreement is part of a 2017 partnership agreement where agriculture has committed to sharing in improving NZ’s biosecurity. So, if farmers refuse to sign this particular FMD Agreement, they will have no say and still have to pay some of the costs. Farmers will bear 40% of the readiness cost for appropriate systems and resources, including staff training, future planning and being involved in exercises and simulations. The government bears the other 60%, including risk assessments, border controls and an ongoing national response network. That is part of its agreed minimum commitment that, if not met, agriculture will not have to pay this cost.
That raises two questions. Who defines minimum anyway? Why not have a maximum government commitment to prepare for this nationally critical disease? Farmers, like any taxpayer, will also contribute to the government’s share. Undoubtedly, they should bear the cost of the potential threat to their business, just like for any disease or risk. But what about other businesses directly affected, like tourism? International tourists would disappear, and internal visitor travel would be restricted. The COVID-19 lockdown has shown that effect. Ironically, the most significant risk of introducing this disease is through international visitors, so a clear case for tourism to share some of the readiness costs. If the disease does occur - make that when - the government pays for the costs of the response. It will endeavour to recover some of that from sectors that could take some responsibility.
Agriculture’s response share in this Agreement will be 15% from farm businesses that have not been operating since the outbreak. Blood from stone. Again, as taxpayers, farmers will also share any residue left for the government. Agriculture’s cost recovery will be spread over 10 years, starting one year after re-establishing export trade.
With no meat, fibre, and milk export income, there will be much less money circulating in the country, so all businesses will be affected, and so will society. It should demand government take a maximum approach to border biosecurity measures. A substantially increased fine for an offence would cost it nothing but would soon emphasise this seriousness. The tourist industry would undoubtedly bleat, but not only does it create the risk pathway, but it also does not share the readiness cost.
