A case of barking up wrong tree

Anna Wallis PHOTO/FILE

A feature article in the Chronicle earlier this month shed light on the raids on the homes of Wanganui residents Clive and Nicki Higgie, and Aucklander Graeme Platt.

The article by Laurel Stowell may have explained what happened, but there is still no explanation as to why such extreme action was required.

Ecologist Mr Platt puts it down to a bungling police officer and ill informed Ministry of Primary Industries staff.

It's a pretty big decision to raid someone's home over plant material, take away possessions including computer files, and lay charges under this country's biosecurity laws.

But in this case the decision was made on a very flimsy basis: conflicting opinions in the botany world on whether kauri trees were the same or different species, and having an unauthorised plant - to wit an Australian fig species.

It's evident Graeme Platt and Clive and Nicki Higgie knew much more about the plants in question than any of those who brought this case to court.

It's also evident all could have been sorted out with a bit of a chat and maybe even a request not to grow a certain tree. That would be the Kiwi way. New Zealand's primary production sector was not in any danger and any kind of policing is at a level to fit the crime, or in this case botanical differences of opinion.

The conciliatory tone taken by the Higgies after the prosecution was dropped is indicative of how this should have played out in the first place.

Mr Platt has called MPI's action "mindless bullying". His words are harsh but hardly misguided. While he could be accused of being pig-headed about importing the kauri type in question, it didn't warrant dawn raids.

His plan to sue MPI will be watched with interest, primarily for some enlightenment on why the raids and prosecution were considered necessary.