Biosecurity fundamental but NAIT questions remain

27 April 2011

Federated Farmers fully backs biosecurity resources at the border because biosecurity is the alpha and omega of not just farming, but the entire economy. Yet it remains of concern that the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Bill is being treated as the only solution.

“Compulsory national identification in New Zealand is one step closer and could start with low frequency electronic identification (EID) tags for cattle and deer,” says Lachlan McKenzie, Federated Farmers co-spokesperson for animal identification.

“This shouldn’t be about magic bullets or big-bang solutions, but a combination of tools and approaches. Federated Farmers fear is that NAIT is being embraced as the definitive solution when in fact, it’s only one tool.

“While we’ve made a lot of improvements to NAIT over the past few years, philosophically, we believe in a market driven scheme and not compulsion. That said, our submission on the NAIT Bill is highly detailed in order to improve what is currently before us.

“That’s the responsible thing to do, as is building our fiscal capacity to meet a future biosecurity incursion.

“While not in our submission, a low level charge on imports, much like the EQC levy on insurance, would build this fiscal capacity where the risk comes from. We need the biosecurity ambulance at the top of the cliff rather than relying on NAIT at the bottom, when really, it’s far too late.

“A market driven scheme would avoid the worrying draconian compliance provisions we see in the NAIT Bill that are themselves lifted from the Search and Surveillance Bill.

“Farmers are commercially canny and if there was an advantage in NAIT, they’d be into it faster than a rat up a drainpipe. Yet in January, just ten months out from the compulsory date for cattle to be tagged, three-quarters did not have a NAIT ear tag.

“This is because farmers still struggle to see how a NAIT tag will maintain access to markets when no country is demanding EID on our food exports. We’ve asked MFAT that very question.

“Farmers struggle to see how NAIT will promote safer food over and above NZFSA protocols and the same comes to how low-frequency tags, much like a Snapper card used on public transport, will boost on-farm productivity while meeting consumer preferences.

“What’s more, low frequency tags maybe proven technology but so was the ice-box. It worries us greatly that advanced technology like ultra-high frequency (UHF) tags was discounted by NAIT as ‘unproven.’

“NAIT is no silver bullet for a biosecurity incursion. People are deluded if they think a tag will magically block serious microscopic animal diseases from crossing our border.

“As you are dealing with consumer perceptions, NAIT or no NAIT, any serious outbreak will become a barrier for trade. Overseas consumers will not draw a distinction between our islands as we are dealing with human and commercial reality.

“Take Waiheke Island’s Foot and Mouth hoax, repeatedly used as justification for NAIT. That hoax involved sheep, which aren’t actually in NAIT. When you add in excluded animals like pigs, goats and even zoo animals, there are more biosecurity holes than Swiss cheese.

“But the biggest cost to farmers isn’t the tag cost, as all cattle must carry a tag, but the many hours of admin time that take our eyes off our farms. Combined with an absence of productive value due to NAIT’s choice of low-frequency tags, you can see how that’s going to build resentment,” Mr McKenzie concluded.

ENDS

© Scoop Media