Vote Biosecurity
Within Vote Biosecurity (Agriculture and Forestry) the output expenses contribute to the following MAF intermediate outcomes:
- Maintained and enhanced market access for agricultural, horticultural, food and forestry products and reduced market distortions resulting from trade rules and market interventions.
- Credible and trusted animal and plant product assurance.
- Balanced export and import regime covering the safety and suitability aspects of trade in animal and plant products.
- Protection of land-based and aquatic environments, primary production systems, trade, and human health and wellness from biosecurity pests.
- Reduced impacts on human health and wellness from biosecurity pests and pest management activities.
- Protection from biosecurity pests of the economic, environmental, recreational and cultural values and benefits associated with land, biological and water environments.
- Protection of Māori biologically-based economic resources.
- Protection of Māori biologically-based cultural resources.
Biosecurity Policy
This output expense includes providing analysis and advice on, and development of, policies, legislation and organisational arrangements to be applied to: developing and implementing strategies for achieving effective, efficient and equitable outcomes for biosecurity; the co-ordination of biosecurity advice to the Minister and participation in biosecurity and consultative forums; Māori responsiveness; and ongoing business support.
Performance Measure and results:
All policy advice will conform to the criteria set out in Schedule A of the SOI.
The majority of the policy advice prepared complied with Schedule A, according to the biosecurity policy quality management system. The main exception was an issue of timeliness with some Ministerial correspondence where time extensions were not requested. The quality management system tracks the development of policy documents including the consultation, peer review and approval for release requirements. All external documents must conform with this system. There is also good networking among those contributing to the policy advice and peer support is provided especially to new analysts.
Performance Measure and results:
Priority work is completed as agreed or, as subsequently amended by agreement,
between the Minister and the Director-General via the 2005/06 Output Plan.
Given the nature of biosecurity work, priorities in the Vote Biosecurity Output Plan were subject to change. In some priority areas, a greater than expected level of work has been delivered (e.g. incursion response advice and biosecurity decision-making advice). A lower than expected level of work has been delivered in other areas (e.g. advice on some aspects of improving incursion preparedness). However, this was a result of the new work being formally assessed as higher priority. Policy advice requirements for pest incursions over the year have been significantly higher than expected, reducing the staff resources available for addressing some of the areas proposed in the output plan.
The output plan outlines priority areas in general terms rather than on a specific project basis as priorities for biosecurity policy advice change rapidly and frequently over the year. Periodic reporting against the plan has shown the progress being made on the priorities and the resetting of the priorities.
Performance Measure and results:
Input into key international forums - the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE),
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), International Maritime
Organisation (IMO), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the World Trade
Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (WTO/SPS) - will be submitted
in accordance with the International Organisations' consultation requirements
100 percent of the time and meets Ministers' expectations.
Input to all these forums presented the New Zealand position and was submitted on time according to the respective forums' requirements. Input into these forums are high priority tasks that are individually assigned to ensure the 100 percent performance target is met. There was no negative Ministerial feedback regarding expectations being met.
Performance Measure and results:
Development of a Biosecurity Science Strategy in partnership with MoRST, which
will be endorsed by government (biosecurity agencies and their Ministers),
stakeholders and the science community and compilation and implementation of a
biosecurity research programme that aligns with this strategy.
Considerable progress has been made with developing the Biosecurity Science Strategy. MAF and the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) have reviewed and approved the structure and direction of the strategy and work is well underway to produce a targeted consultation draft.
Given delays in the development of the Science Strategy, alignment of MAF's biosecurity operational research programme is anticipated in 2006/07. Good progress has been made toward placing the operational research programme in a strategic context. The strategy and operational research programme has been delayed due to the departure of key staff members. However, the programmes are now on track to revised timelines, with anticipated completion of the strategy in April 2007, and contracted operational research in September 2006.
Financial Performance of Biosecurity Policy
| Actual June 2005 $(000) |
Main Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Supp Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Actual June 2006 $(000) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10,865 | Revenue Crown | 10,109 | 11,418 | 11,418 |
| 28 | Revenue Other | 46 | 220 | 168 |
| 10,893 | Total Revenue | 10,155 | 11,638 | 11,586 |
| 9,997 | Total Expenses | 10,155 | 11,638 | 11,542 |
| 896 | Surplus/(Deficit) | - | - | 44 |
Biosecurity Approvals and Assurance
This output expense covers the administration of biosecurity standards and export certification. It involves auditing against biosecurity regulatory standards and providing assurance to trading partners that New Zealand exporters are complying with the relevant regulations.
Performance Measure and results:
100 percent of the agreed audit schedule is completed and effective reviews
carried out in accordance with Compliance Team procedures (as per ISO 19011 and
Biosecurity New Zealand audit policy) and, when appropriate, include
constructive suggestions for improvement.
Two-thirds of the 2005/06 audit schedule was completed, mainly due to staff vacancies and new biosecurity pathways and facilities not being ready for audit. As planned, about one-third of audits, the offshore technical audits, were carried out outside Compliance Team procedures.
The offshore, technical programme will be reviewed in 2006/07. Audit reports have included improvement suggestions.
Financial Performance of Biosecurity Approvals and Assurance
| Actual June 2005 $(000) |
Main Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Supp Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Actual June 2006 $(000) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,093 | Revenue Crown | 1,299 | 928 | 928 |
| 487 | Revenue Other | 88 | 840 | 546 |
| 1,580 | Total Revenue | 1,387 | 1,768 | 1,474 |
| 1,723 | Total Expenses | 1,387 | 1,768 | 1,762 |
| (143) | Surplus/(Deficit) | - | - | (288) |
Biosecurity Enforcement
This output expense covers investigation and (where appropriate) prosecution of individuals and organisations who breach biosecurity legislation.
Performance Measure and results:
Complaints investigated in priority order in accordance with the integrated risk
management framework.
A priority framework was developed and used by all enforcement/investigative staff to prioritise complaints. All breaches were prioritised based on MAF's Biosecurity Integrated Risk Management Framework. Not all offences exposed or reported progress to a full investigation. Many are dealt with by way of education or where appropriate a warning. In order for MAF to support those breaches progressed to a full investigation, a comprehensive legal manual and work flow map has been written to support and enable best practice in the investigative process. Both systems have been placed on MAF's intranet to support other parts of the organisation.
Performance Measure and results:
No abuse of process determined by the Courts for any prosecution commenced.
One case put forward by MAF resulted in prosecution costs being awarded. However, it did not amount to an abuse of process per se. The Court determined in this particular case that the Crown should be called on to help contribute to the cost given the resource available to them.
MAF is currently developing a comprehensive compliance strategy to clearly describe the decision-making process for matters which should be prosecuted under biosecurity legislation along with those breaches identified which may be dealt with using an alternative to the prosecution process. Prosecution is often costly both in resource allocation and dollar input. Breaches that are deemed to be so serious in nature (outcome impact) are, as a priority, placed before the Courts as part of the MAF prosecution decision-making process.
Performance Measure and results:
99 percent of prosecution actions brought lead to successful prosecutions (i.e.
the courts finding in MAF's favour); one percent allowed for Courts' discretion
to discharge without conviction in minor matters.
Ninety-seven percent of prosecution actions brought led to successful prosecutions. Of the 82 prosecution files under the Biosecurity Act (including breaches of Infringement Notice s154(s)), 46 were completed successfully, 18 are currently before court and 17 files are currently at the preparation stage. One prosecution file put forward by MAF was dismissed and resulted in prosecution costs being awarded.
The majority of prosecutions undertaken by MAF were border-related offences originating from persons who intentionally failed to declare risk goods as required under the Biosecurity Act 1993. A smaller number of breaches originated post-border and around transitional facility requirements where movement of risk goods took place both negligently and intentionally without the required statutory biosecurity clearance being issued.
A priority system has been developed to help identify and differentiate between matters needing to be progressed through the courts and those which could be dealt with in other ways. The priority system covers factors such as seriousness of event, willingness by parties to mitigate any wrongdoing, principles around offending etc. If in doubt the matter is usually placed before the Court based on the requirements set out within the Solicitor General's Guidelines 1992.
$1.2 million of Crown funding was allocated to running the infringement programme. A total of 6,300 erroneous declaration Infringement Notices were issued at the border for breaches under the Biosecurity Act, resulting in $200 instant fines. Although payment is an acknowledgement of guilt by the party for an infringement breach, legislation prevents a conviction being recorded against the person. Infringement offences therefore are not recorded as convictions in the same manner as mens rea (intentional breaches) are recorded within this output expense. The Notices were issued where passengers failed to declare they possessed risk goods but their actions were not deliberate - they were careless as to what they had in their possession. Ninety-seven percent of passengers on average paid the infringement fee either at the time or during the period required.
Financial Performance of Biosecurity Enforcement
| Actual June 2005 $(000) |
Main Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Supp Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Actual June 2006 $(000) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3,417 | Revenue Crown | 3,080 | 3,844 | 3,844 |
| 69 | Revenue Other | 12 | 45 | 43 |
| 3,486 | Total Revenue | 3,092 | 3,889 | 3,887 |
| 3,373 | Total Expenses | 3,092 | 3,889 | 3,858 |
| 113 | Surplus/(Deficit) | - | - | 29 |
Biosecurity Standards
This output expense involves setting standards for imports, exports, border including transitional facilities, post-border including incursion response and surveillance, international agreements, undertaking risk analysis to support standard development and monitoring border pathway. Standards need to comply with the Biosecurity Act.
Performance Measure and results:
100 percent of new biosecurity standards or revisions to existing standards are
able to be implemented as intended by MAF Quarantine Service and other
accredited providers.
Ninety-six percent of new or revised standards were implemented as intended. The four percent that were not implemented as intended relate to resourcing in MAF Quarantine Service rather than the implementability of the inspection regime. During the year there was increased attention to implementation issues when developing standards and systems alignment between the group that develops biosecurity import-related standards, the MAF Quarantine Service and accredited providers.
Performance Measure and results:
100 percent of new biosecurity standards and risk analyses or revisions are
prioritised using the Integrated Risk Management Framework.
The 2006/07 import health standard work programme, including supporting risk analyses, was prioritised using the Integrated Risk Management Framework. This was the first year of the new import health standard prioritisation and funding system. The system will be extended to prioritise operational import-related standards using the Framework in 2006/07.
Performance Measure and results:
100 percent of all biosecurity standards and risk analyses or revisions comply
with the Biosecurity Act 1993.
100 percent of standards and risk analyses complied with the Act. Procedures were developed to include compliance with legislation and also a checkpoint for compliance before standards were issued.
Performance Measure and results:
Export assurances meeting importing country requirements operate within the
internationally accepted norm of a five percent margin for justified detection
of error.
All animal export consignments met the importing country requirements. Of the 60,504 phytosanitary certificates issued for horticulture/arable/forestry in the period May 2005 to May 2006, less than 0.1 percent of certificates (assurances) issued failed to comply with importing countries' requirements. This is well within the internationally accepted margin of error.
Effective audit systems are in place to ensure organisations, facilities, people and procedures meet the requirements of export operational standards, and export assurance systems comply with international standards, i.e. current animal and germplasm export programmes comply with OIE requirements.
Financial Performance of Biosecurity Standards
| Actual June 2005 $(000) |
Main Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Supp Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Actual June 2006 $(000) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19,884 | Revenue Crown | 15,011 | 21,890 | 21,890 |
| 2,364 | Revenue Other | 2,347 | 2,069 | 2,028 |
| 22,248 | Total Revenue | 17,358 | 23,959 | 23,918 |
| 21,667 | Total Expenses | 17,358 | 23,959 | 23,908 |
| 581 | Surplus/(Deficit) | - | - | 10 |
Biosecurity Surveillance and Incursion Response
This output expense covers the delivery of services for surveillance for new organisms in the terrestrial and aquatic environments. These include: invasive species, pests and diseases of native and introduced animal and plant populations (including forests), maintenance of the capability to investigate and respond to new organisms and, if necessary, the delivery of services for their eradication or management.
Performance Measure and results:
All reported suspect new and unwanted organisms investigated and the presence of
an exotic organism (as opposed to established organism) ruled in or ruled out in
accordance with agreed standards (as specified in the Output Plan).
All suspect new and unwanted organisms were investigated to the agreed standards as specified in the Output Plan and were recorded in incursion and investigation reports.
Performance Measure and results:
All reports of suspected unwanted organisms are investigated and responded to in
accordance with existing policies, standards and procedures.
All Surveillance and Incursion Response's Suspected (S&IRs) Unwanted Organisms Reports have been responded to in accordance with MAF's Biosecurity Incursion Policy Statement. The Statement provides a high level framework under which S&IR aligns response activities. While appropriate for medium/large scale responses the significant requirements under this framework can prove onerous for the numerous small scale new detections MAF regularly faces - particularly in the plant health, environmental pest and marine areas where there are significant gaps in baseline information as to what is or is not already present in New Zealand. Although MAF continues to meet the broad obligations of the Policy Statement, the lack of generic procedures under this high level framework creates challenges for robust performance measurement. A significant MAF strategic project to review the Incursion Response Policy, developing a high level generic response framework, is progressing well. It will result in significant improvements and is due for completion in November 2006.
Performance Measure and results:
All surveillance, incursion response and pest management programmes have clearly
identified objectives and performance measures.
All responses and surveillance programmes have clearly defined and documented response objectives. More emphasis on defining associated and "SMART" performance measures and formal review processes are planned for 2006/07 to ensure meaningful assessment of performance against these objectives. The new Incursion Response Model will provide for increasing emphasis on formal recommendation and sign-off of objectives and strategies in responses. Greater use of project management disciplines with clear sponsors and steering groups is resulting in improved management of surveillance and response work including better objectives and measures.
The five existing pest management programmes transferred to MAF from DOC have clearly identified objectives and milestones, with variable performance measures. This follows the rollover of previous programme arrangements for 2005/06, given this was recognised as a transition year, with programmes (including objectives and performance measures) to be reprioritised/reviewed for the 2006/07 year. All project milestones were met on time, performance objectives were achieved for hydrilla (containment to three lakes in the Hawkes Bay) and hornwort (eradication from the South Island). Achievement of project objectives against measures has been difficult to ascertain for remaining programmes given variable quality and in some cases absence of measures.
Performance Measure and results:
All programmes audited in accordance with agreed schedules and all critical and
key issues addressed.
Programmes scheduled for audit were prioritised with a focus on high risk programmes or those where performance issues have been noted in the past.
Audits of AgriQuality's contracted service delivery for the Gypsy Moth Surveillance and for Fruit Fly Surveillance were completed in March 2006 and June 2006 - within the planned time frame, with the draft reports being lodged with respective parties in March 2006 and May 2006. An audit considering AgriQuality's contracted service delivery for the painted apple moth and fall webworm eradication programmes was completed on time in June 2006. An audit of an exotic tick response involving MAF and AgriQuality was completed in October 2005 and critical issues and recommendations were addressed.
Other scheduled audits (Fruit fly response, Notifiable plants, and High Risk Surveillance) were reprioritised. The Fruit fly response and Notifiable plants audits were removed from the 2005/06 schedule following a reprioritisation request from the Compliance and Enforcement Group. The High Risk Site Surveillance programme was removed from the schedule after an S&IR decision that, as this was the first time the expanded programme was being operated, an audit of Year Two operations would be more valuable. Notifiable plants and High Risk Site Surveillance programmes are currently on the 2006/07 schedule. Pest management programmes were not formally audited, given this was a transition year and not justified by the size of contracts.
Performance Measure and results:
Pest management roles and responsibilities are clarified and pest management
priorities are clearly identified.
Work on the clarification of roles and responsibilities is progressing well, but is ongoing and will continue throughout 2006/07 at least. An interim model to guide decisions on when MAF should lead and/or coordinate specific programmes was developed and tested with a core group of central and regional government officials from DOC, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish), the Ministry of Health (MoH) and regional councils. It will be tested further with the officials' Biosecurity Co-ordination Group in August 2006 then sent to the Biosecurity Central Regional Government Forum (Chief Executives) for agreement at its next meeting after that date. This is challenging work, given the political and controversial nature of issues, and requires input and a reasonable level of agreement across a large number of agencies. Good progress is being made on building an interim model, with good engagement across agencies. Wider pest management roles and responsibilities work has been deferred until MAF's Biosecurity Decisions Project is completed.
Work on the identification of pest management priorities exceeded the planned level of achievement. Seven strategic pest management priorities have been agreed by the Biosecurity Central Regional Government Forum (Chief Executives), along with actions to address these over a five-year timeframe. Sequencing of this work over a five-year timeframe, and project management arrangements have been agreed by the agencies involved (MAF, DOC, LINZ, MoH, MFish, regional councils). A five-year whole-of-government workplan is in preparation, to be tabled for agreement at the next meeting of the Biosecurity Central Regional Government Forum.
Financial Performance of Biosecurity Surveillance and Incursion Response
| Actual June 2005 $(000) |
Main Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Supp Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Actual June 2006 $(000) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22,216 | Revenue Crown | 28,359 | 36,608 | 36,342 |
| 6,253 | Revenue Other | 2,269 | 2,279 | 2,225 |
| 28,469 | Total Revenue | 30,628 | 38,887 | 38,567 |
| 28,910 | Total Expenses | 30,628 | 38,887 | 38,668 |
| (441) | Surplus/(Deficit) | - | - | (101) |
Quarantine Services
This output expense involves clearing all direct overseas aircraft and vessels, sea containers, personal effects consignments, used vehicles and other biosecurity risk cargo and passengers in accordance with biosecurity legislation and MAF Biosecurity standards.
Performance Measure and results:
All direct overseas aircraft and vessel arrivals are cleared in accordance with
biosecurity legislation and MAF biosecurity standards.
All of the 30,325 direct overseas aircraft and the 3,033 direct overseas vessels were processed under the relevant biosecurity legislation and Import Health Standards. In total, 4,609,306 passengers were processed, with 130,011 risk items seized, and infringement notices issued.
Performance Measure and results:
100 percent of all imported potential quarantine risk materials are either
visually screened, x-rayed and subsequently actioned via international cargo and
mail pathways, by the MAF Quarantine Service.
All of the 58.6 million mail packages were x-rayed, with 62,713 containing suspected risk goods opened. All of the 580,828 sea containers were processed as their risk profile determined. In total, 153,719 used vehicles and machinery items were processed and 33,455 personal effects consignments were inspected. All were processed under the relevant biosecurity legislation and Import Health Standards.
Performance Measure and results:
All intercepted risk goods are processed in accordance with biosecurity
legislation and MAF biosecurity standards.
All intercepted risk goods (except mail or passenger) were issued with Biosecurity Authorisation Clearance Certificates which stated under which MAF biosecurity standard the goods were cleared. Annual audits of these processes took place as did a number of random site-specific checks.
Financial Performance of Quarantine Service
| Actual June 2005 $(000) |
Main Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Supp Estimates June 2006 $(000) |
Actual June 2006 $(000) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25,386 | Revenue Crown | 30,399 | 28,279 | 28,279 |
| 21,462 | Revenue Other | 21,903 | 22,500 | 21,189 |
| 46,848 | Total Revenue | 52,302 | 50,779 | 49,468 |
| 46,583 | Total Expenses | 52,302 | 50,779 | 51,591 |
| 265 | Surplus/(Deficit) | - | - | (2,123) |
The $2.123 million quarantine services deficit was caused by two main factors:
- Expenses exceeded budget by $0.812 million due to the collective employment settlement having a higher than anticipated fiscal impact.
- Revenue Other was $1.311 million below budget due to cargo volumes being below forecast.
Contact for Enquiries
Strategy and Performance Group
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526, Wellington
Tel: +64 4 894 0100
Fax: +64 4 894 0738
Contact this person
