New Zealand Executive Government Speech Archive

Peter O'Hara; Andrew McKenzie, Sandra Newman and others involved in the production of this document; My parliamentary colleagues; Ladies and Gentlemen.

I'm beginning to wonder it I'm not a little jinxed as a minister. For five and a half years, it seemed that education was seldom off the front pages. Now I'm Minister of Agriculture, agriculture stories seem to be dominating the media.

In my defence, I can only say that it is far beyond my powers to influence the findings of the British Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. And while some of my political opponents will no doubt try, I don't think you can hold me responsible for the discovery of the fruit fly. Nevertheless, these recent issues have highlighted the need for New Zealand to be ever-vigilant in protecting our agricultural industries from foreign risks.

Compare New Zealand today to that of twenty years ago, and the range of products available has grown enormously. Imported products which would have once been considered exotic are now commonplace. We led the world in opening up trade. Consumers now have more choice than ever before. Few of us would want to go back to the dismal shop shelves of the past.

At the same time, trade agreements have allowed us to expand our exports. There are more goods and services flowing in and out of New Zealand than ever before. We all benefit from that.

But the more we import, the greater risk we face from importing foreign hazards. And the potential cost of those risks increases as we become ever-more dependent on exporting to the world. That's why New Zealand must seek to lead the world in risk analysis, just as we led the world in free trade.

We do have a reputation for exporting clean products. We need to maintain it, and, wherever possible, strengthen it. At the same time, we have to make sure that we can't be accused of using unjustified sanitary and phytosanitary measures as barriers to trade. We must be able to demonstrate that all our policies are based on science. Never must we be perceived as trying to cheat in the world marketplace.

Balancing those two demands is what the document we launch today - Risk Analysis - is all about.

The document is not about risk elimination. There is risk in everything we do. Attempts to eliminate risk entirely are bound to fail. And, in the meantime, they can do more harm than good. This document is about risk minimisation and management.

Take the current BSE scare in the UK. If young people are to travel to the UK for their OEs, if we are to have a tourism industry, and if it is not going to be illegal to eat wine gums and water crackers, then no one can say for certain that there is zero risk. But after the actions the Government has taken, that risk, in any but the most precise scientific language, is best described as "none".

The same is true with the fruit fly. If aircraft, ships, people and products are to travel in and out of New Zealand, there is always a risk that fruit fly will be imported. However, we can develop strategies to reduce the risk to the minimum level, and put in place further strategies to deal with fruit fly on the rare occasions they are found.

The importation of Pacific Canadian salmon is another example, bearing in mind that imports are restricted to those which are headless, eviscerated, wild and ocean-caught. The chance of importing Aeromonas salmonicida is less than one in 10 million tonnes imported. Given the effectiveness of inspection and grading systems in detecting the disease - as well as the fact that the entire production if the fish is less than 100,000 tonnes a year - the risk is infinitesimal. But it does remain, just as the risk of being struck by lightening while scoring a hole in one at St Andrew's remains.

There is always a tendency for people to say that they don't want to accept any risk at all. We need to ensure that we put the risks they face in context. And we also need to make clear the consequences of trying to take a zero risk approach.

It is not hyperbole to say that the only way to entirely eliminate risk to our agricultural security is to stop all trade, close down our tourism industry and ban New Zealanders from travelling overseas. It is also important to make clear the trade consequences of banning imports of any product which presents even the slightest risk. New Zealand does not expect other countries to make false claims about the risk our products might present to them. In return, we cannot be seen to be establishing pseudo trade barriers
through false assessments of risk. In everything we do, we must ensure we base our decisions on sound science, and we must ensure we meet our international obligations.

It is important that these issues are understood by the agricultural industry, the public and the media. If we are to have mature public debates about the risks to New Zealand's agricultural industry it must not be seen as some sort of admission when a minister or an official or a scientist refuses to give an absolute guarantee. Public debate must go further, and involve the analysis of whatever risk is of concern.

I believe this document will contribute to that. It makes clear that reducing risks to New Zealand is essential to protect our reputation as a supplier internationally of clean products. Only by doing that will we keep trade doors open. It also makes clear that to keep those trade doors open we must also be able to assure our trading partners that any rules and regulations we impose are soundly-based.

It outlines a risk analysis process to that end which includes:

• the identification and assessment of risk, and the severity of its potential impact
• designing strategies to minimise the risk, and
• Communication.

MAF's role is outlined,P along with international organisations and the impact of international agreements. Case studies are provided, which are surprisingly topical - the Queensland Fruit Fly, scrapie in sheep and Canadian salmon. And the future is discussed.

The discipline of risk analysis will continue to develop. As a country dependent on trade, we have a vested interest in contributing to its development. And the assessments of different risks will continue to develop as more research is carried out and as more information comes to light. Risk analysis must not be static. We must continually expand the information available, and strengthen the methodology we use to assess it.

MAF has made a major contribution to the discipline both through the work it is constantly involved in and through the publication of this document. I commend it to anyone with an interest in our agricultural sector.

And let's just hope we see agriculture back in the inside of the newspapers, and off the front page, as our risk analysis techniques are ever-more refined.