'Hobson's choice' over biosecurity deal

Primary sector industries have been offered "Hobson's choice" when it comes to government/industry agreements and biosecurity.
Speaking to vegetable growers at the annual Horticulture New Zealand conference in Rotorua yesterday, Market Access Solutions' Shaun Slattery said there was little point complaining about the proposed public/private cost sharing approach to biosecurity - it was a done deal - and New Zealand's primary sector industries just needed to decide whether they were in or out.
"It's quite a simple concept - we will share decision making with MAF and share the costs of 'readiness and response' activities."
That means industries will be called on to prioritise biosecurity risks in their sector, working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to gather information on the most important pests and diseases to develop strategies to prevent them arriving in New Zealand and to deal with them if they do come.
"The Government is trying to make industry be prepared for pests so, when they do arrive, we know what we are going to do."
Slattery has been working with the Government on the scheme on behalf of HortNZ's Fresh Vegetable Product Group in the past year. He said the agreements would not change the ministry's strategy but would make the primary sector part of it and give it a say in decision making.
"Government will come to the table with at least 50 per cent of the costs for agreed activities. If it is considered to be of greater public benefit, they will pay more."
Slattery said the remaining cost would need to be met by the affected sector or sectors, divided according to their industry value.
But he said the whole concept worked around consensus - agreeing on priorities, agreeing on appropriate pre-emptory actions and responses, and agreeing on the cost sharing - and he was not sure how that would work in biosecurity situations when decisions needed to be made in minutes or hours, rather than weeks or months.
Concerns raised within the produce industry have included worries that signing an agreement was tantamount to signing a blank cheque, although Slattery said this was not the case.
Industries would have certain operative costs relating to their ongoing work with the ministry but could opt out of particular activities at any time.
"There is also a fiscal cap to provide confidence that decision makers will not be making non-stop decisions about how much you will spend. Once they reach that cap, they will need to go back to industry."
Growers also objected to being the "victims" of biosecurity breaches, yet they were the ones expected to fund biosecurity activity, while importers, who risk bringing in pests and diseases, pay nothing. "The Government's view is that importers are being levied - they pay $80-100 million in biosecurity levies already."
Slattery said it was too late to go back to the Government saying the agreements were not what the industry wanted. Such concerns had been presented and dismissed.
He said the success of the biosecurity agreements would rely on cultural change within Government and industry to create a true partnership approach.
"But it's really Hobson's choice - we accept the partnership or we refuse it. Government/industry agreements are here and the question for the industry is whether we decide to look after biosecurity ourselves, and possibly end up paying anyway, or we work in partnership with the Government and control what we pay for."