Saturday, March 30, 2024

Feds accuse MPI of extortion

Avatar photo
Arable farmers generally believe they should join the Government Industry Biosecurity Agreement despite a Federated Farmers leader saying officials are using extortion tactics and putting a gun to farmers’ heads to get them to sign.
Among the growing trials is sustainable crop rotations, which includes high-value grains, legumes, and vegetables.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Following a series of Foundation for Arable Research (FAR) consultation meetings across the country the general consensus is the industry needs a voice at the biosecurity table, FAR chief executive Alison Stewart said.

“There has been much questioning and vigorous debate but growers and industry alike understand the principle behind it (GIA).

“Overall the consensus is it’s better to be in than out,” Stewart said.

The arable industry, being a very complicated web of stakeholders with 40 different crops, numerous end-users, importers and exporters, is taking longer than many sectors to make decisions.

GIA will mean the industry has greater involvement in the entire biosecurity system and shares decision-making in relation to any response that affects it.

“However, there is also an agreement to share both readiness and response costs to pre-agreed fiscal caps.”

It has been the cost and whether farmers and industry should pay that have triggered much debate.

The arable industry has committed to working with the Government and other sector groups to manage biosecurity and has formed Seed and Grain Readiness and Response (SGRR), an incorporated society that represents five organisations – Federated Farmers Arable, Flour Millers Association, FAR, NZ Grain and Seed Trade Association and United Wheatgrowers (UWG).

Each organisation will have one director on SGRR.

Farmers and companies are debating whether SGRR should become the GIA signatory.

“It’s not a done deal yet. This is a consultation round of meetings,” Stewart said.

The meetings that started in Gore have been held in Ashburton, Timaru, Christchurch, Hamilton, Bulls, Masterton and Hawke’s Bay.

Farmers’ general opinion was summed by up by several farmers at the Ashburton meeting.

“I don’t think we have a choice,” one said.

“We want to sit at the table and be part of any discussion,” another said.

“We have got to be there,” a third said.

But South Canterbury Federated Farmers arable chairman Jeremy Talbot said the Ministry for Primary Industries has a lot to answer for.

“MPI is using overbearing extortion tactics to get these GIAs signed.

“Yes, we all need to be around the table but we should not have a gun to our head to sign a GIA to be there.”

Talbot said while South Canterbury farmers agree on the need to be at the biosecurity table they are not happy with the payment system or the responsibility landed on them when MPI is responsible for what comes across the border.

“What MPI should be doing is putting a biosecurity insurance levy on all imports coming into NZ and whatever the rate, it can be varied accordingly for grain, seed, palm kernel, agricultural machinery.”

Rated appropriately a levy could return $5 million a year and with a fiscal cap of $10m or $15m could be zero-rated until time of need.

“It’s about putting the levy on where the risk is perceived to be,” Talbot said.

Feds arable industry group seeds vice-chairman David Clark said given biosecurity is paramount to the industry farmers generally support the concept.

“But there’s a reasonably common theme that if we are going to be sent a bill to mop up an incursion then is it appropriate or not that we have a greater level of involvement on the risks taken at the border.

“And another is that if we are paying a fair chunk of the bill to clean up the incursion what is appropriate to go back on the importer – we have been down that track a couple of times of recently.”

Clark said the GIA will be high on the agenda when the Feds arable industry group meets next month.

“We will give it very good discussion and hopefully get a group consensus at that meeting.” 

UWG chairman Brian Leadley said the organisation supports GIA.

“Our view is we are no good sitting on the sideline. We believe hands-on being involved is the better option.

“But we like to think we will be more involved with readiness and hopefully that will minimise or even negate the need for involvement in response,” Leadley said.

Stewart said the arable industry has been an observer in a number of recent biosecurity incursions including pea weevil, black grass, velvet leaf, red clover casebearer moth and is aware the import and multiplication of seeds is a high biosecurity risk activity.

“If the industry doesn’t become a GIA deed signatory it will have no formal say in any readiness or response activities undertaken on behalf of our industry and (the) Government would have no obligation to consult with or work with us.”

MORE:

On GIA and SGRR AT www.far.org.nz

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading