KEY POINTS:
One of the laboratories at the heart of the UK foot-and-mouth investigation will remain New Zealand's highest authority on the disease even if they are found to be responsible for the leak.
New Zealand relies on the UK Government-funded Institute of Animal Health in Pirbright, Surrey - one
of two labs on the same site which authorities are investigating as the possible source - as the last word when it comes to confirming suspected cases of foot-and-mouth.
Although New Zealand has managed to stay free of the disease, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry receives up to 20 alerts a year from farmers and vets.
But very few actually warrant referral to the Surrey institute, according to MAF's director of investigation and diagnostic centres, Dr Hugh Davies.
Although the lab is higher-security than anything in New Zealand, Davies said he was closely watching the investigations into the possible breach.
"We will be keen to find out whether there's anything that can be learned from the UK situation," he said.
MAF holds no live foot-and-mouth virus at any of its facilities but it does have approval to "hold virtually any infectious agent that affects livestock", Davies said.
"We're continually monitoring our systems to ensure they are safe and secure."
The Surrey laboratory came under suspicion after the first case found on a nearby farm last week resembled a strain held there. The results of tests on a second case detected nearby have yet to be released.
Merial Animal Health, a private firm that makes vaccines, is also under investigation. But Davis said that even if the institute was found to be the source of the leak, MAF would keep its arrangement to send samples there since it was the world reference laboratory for the disease.
Davies, who has visited both the institute and the Merial facility on the same site, said that before the outbreak he would have been surprised to hear of a breach from either.
Since it was not clear how the virus could have escaped from such high-security facilities, he was keen to learn the results of the British probe.
"If there are any surprises to learn from that we will find out as quickly as we can and implement any changes that will be useful."
If foot-and-mouth did make it to New Zealand, MAF had a stock of raw materials required to make the vaccine.
"We have the ability to vaccinate. In the event we wish to do so we can, otherwise the delays would be too long."
But that would be a "significant policy decision" and while vaccination could quickly stop the virus's spread, it would take time to declare the country free of it afterwards.
Preventive use of the vaccine was out of the question because of its impact on trade.
"If we were a country where it was established, we would be using the vaccine. But because we're free we want to maintain that."
Davies said MAF was updating its post-border response because there were always "ways we could do better".
After an incident involving a hoax release of the virus on Waiheke Island in 2005, farmers identified gaps in response systems including lack of recording of animals under 30 days old and on lifestyle farm blocks.
"That will have been improved but we've still got a long way to go there," said Davies.
Although MAF had strengthened surveillance of passengers entering the country from Europe in response to the British foot-and-mouth discovery, the fact that there had already been 65 outbreaks of the disease globally this year meant the level of responsiveness did not need raising further.