Speech notes for joint New Zealand Biosecurity Institute and National Pest Control Agencies conference – National Education and Training Seminar (NETS) , Greymouth

Thank you for organising this conference today on this very important topic, and for the chance to say a few words.

I had a bit of drama getting here this morning with cancelled flights. It would have been easy to give up and head back to Wellington, but I wanted to be here because biosecurity is my number one priority as Minister.

The New Zealand Biosecurity Institute, the National Pest Control Agencies and your members are a valuable part of the biosecurity system. Raising awareness, sharing knowledge and supporting best practice are all very important.

I’m proud to have been appointed the Minister for Primary Industries at the beginning of this year.

The primary sector is the powerhouse of our economy.  It is worth around $30 billion a year to the New Zealand economy and makes up around 72 per cent of our exports.

As a Government we want to do even better than that and have set an ambitious goal of doubling primary sector exports by 2025.

Of course, we will never achieve that if we don’t protect our economy from biosecurity threats.

This is why I’ve made it clear that my number one priority as Minister is biosecurity.

This aligns with the Ministry for Primary Industries’ vision, which is to “Grow and Protect”. Both go hand in hand. Both rely on each other.

I know some of you had concerns about the merger, but it has bedded in very well. It is now the biggest Government regulator with some of the best qualified officials sharing their expertise.  

Today I want to talk to you about the importance of protecting New Zealand from biosecurity threats and what we are doing as a Government to improve our biosecurity system.

Biosecurity

Overall New Zealand has a world class biosecurity system, and it is worth giving that some context.

As an island trading nation, there will be risk of an unwanted pest being introduced to New Zealand. It is simply impossible to eliminate all risk.

Even if we completely stopped all trade to and from New Zealand, even if we halted all movement of people in and out of New Zealand – something I’m sure no one in this room wants - we would still not completely eliminate all risk.

So the question is how we best manage this risk.

To illustrate our challenge let me provide some context - around 175,000 items come across our border each day, and we receive around 10 million travellers a year.

It is simply not possible, for example, to do an exhaustive search of every item in every container in every consignment that arrives in New Zealand.

So what we need to do, and what MPI do, is to work smartly to manage risk at every level of the biosecurity system and to provide the best level of protection.

Budget funding for biosecurity

Before I give more detail, I want to clarify an important misconception that some opposition parties have around this year’s Budget.

To make it crystal clear: funding has not been cut for biosecurity.

Overall funding has doubled since 2000, andwe now have a major programme of work underway to improve what is already a world-class system.

MPI are in the process, as trade increases again, of bolstering their staff. That is why late last year we recruited 45 quarantine inspectors. In January we recruited another 11, and we are in the process of recruiting another 30 quarantine inspectors.

MPI’s biosecurity detector dog programme has also expanded its operational capacity, with 34 teams now active nationally.

Of course, a world class biosecurity system is not about how many people are standing guard at our borders. It takes effect across a number of stages from pre-border to at-border to post-border.

All of these facets of the system need to be strong and need to be regularly reviewed for improvements.

Yesterday I spoke at the Horticulture New Zealand’s annual conference. Their president for the last eight years, Andrew Fenton, acknowledged publicly that he believes we have a “world class” biosecurity system. This is from someone who has been a critic in the past.

Improvements to border security

MPI and I are always looking to make improvements to our biosecurity system.

Yesterday I announced that eleven x-ray machines will replace existing machines at Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington and Queenstown airports used to inspect both the checked-in and hand luggage of people arriving in New Zealand.

Auckland and Christchurch will also receive new technology to reduce the amount of handling required to load and unload luggage onto and off the x-ray machines.

The new x-ray images will be of a better quality than we currently have, which will make Quarantine Inspectors’ jobs easier and more efficient. This is the first step of a major equipment replacement programme.

Earlier this month I announced that MPI will be trialling a new X-ray image transfer process with Melbourne Airport that will enable the biosecurity screening of luggage before it arrives here.

Any bag containing biosecurity risk items can now be matched with the passenger, who will face further scrutiny by officials upon landing.

In the longer term, X-ray image transfer could be applied to routes with higher biosecurity risk, such as those from South East Asia, parts of Europe and the Pacific.

New Zealand is leading the game here. A number of countries, airport companies and airlines are watching the trials of this technology closely. The system could provide another powerful tool for MPI to protect New Zealand from dangerous pests and diseases.

Surveillance

Surveillance for new or existing pests is a large part of the work that MPI carries out. Some of the surveillance programmes that MPI have been involved with in the last year are:

• National Fruit Fly
• National Invasive Ant
• Avian Influenza
• Gypsy Moth.

Over 700 investigations have been undertaken into reported suspect new pests and diseases.

MPI relies heavily on our partners and the general public to report finds of new or suspected pests. This is an area where NZBI and it’s members can provide real value, through raising awareness, and sharing information of what are the risks and what to look out for.

Pest Management National Plan of Action

I greatly value the important role that regional councils, as well as DOC and other Crown agencies and stakeholders, play in the biosecurity system. Regional Councils and DOC in particular have key roles in pest management.

The Pest Management National Plan of Action has established national and regional scale leadership roles for MPI and regional councils. MPI will work with councils on implementing these roles.

The Plan of Action proposed a range of improvements that will ensure the pest management system is fit for purpose for the next 25 years, and ensure that we get better value for money. In particular, theMinister will be able to assign responsibility for a harmful organism or pathways.

It was agreed to by the Chief Executives of Central and Regional Government agencies with a biosecurity role or interest, and then by Cabinet.

MPI are aiming to have the National Policy Direction in place by the end of the year, and the regulations for the process to assign responsibility early next year.

Managing issues like kauri dieback and the great white cabbage butterfly are still important issues and I look forward to receiving reports on future management options going forward.

FMD

Enhancing our ability to manage outbreaks of significant animal disease, in particular foot and mouth disease (FMD), also remains a high priority.

Earlier this year a report by the Auditor General identified some areas of improvement.

MPI has fully accepted the OAG recommendations, noting that some of them, such as regular simulations and exercises, had already been implemented.

At the same time, the report acknowledged that MPI and its predecessor organisations had been largely successful at dealing with incursions.

MPI has a five-year preparedness programme. This involves:

• Whole of Government connectedness
• Filling policy gaps to minimise long-term impacts
• High risk preparedness
• Systems managing responses and information flows
• Integrating response functions
• Communications and liaison
• Capability and capacity testing with exercise programmes.

The aim is to coordinate improvements being made by MPI and partners to improve our capability to respond to adverse events.

GIAs

Good progress is also being made on the Government Industry Agreement on Biosecurity Readiness and Response (GIA). The GIA will provide an opportunity for industries to identify the biosecurity risks of greatest concern to them, and jointly invest with government to better manage those risks, across the biosecurity system.

This reinforces that biosecurity is the responsibility of everyone. As a Government we want to work closely in partnership with industry, councils and communities to continually improve our systems.

Conclusion

On that note, I want to congratulate National Pest Control Agencies (NPCA) and the New Zealand Biosecurity Institute (NZBI) for the work you do in raising awareness of biosecurity issues.

Thank you.