3 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE PROPOSAL
3.1 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
The Terms of Reference require an analysis of the numbers of submissions supporting importation and opposing it, as well as those which are neither for nor against but indicate significant issues which have to be addressed.
3.2 BASIS FOR QUANTIFYING RESPONSES
The actual numbers of submissions received is one basis on which to count preferences for and against importation.
However, some individual submissions contained the signatures of more than one person. This has been taken to imply that each signatory supported the views expressed in the submission. Thus a parallel analysis of preferences in terms of the number of signatures has been provided as well.
It may be asked why this analysis did not take the further step of counting the numbers of people represented by the organisations which made formal submissions. Apart from the logistical difficulties of obtaining such information in the short time available, two major issues forced the conclusion that it would be an invalid exercise.
The first issue is the risk of double counting that would arise if any person belonged to two organisations that made separate submissions, or in the case where members of an organisation also made their own individual submissions. There would be no way of checking for this.
The second issue involves the speculation that would become necessary that every one in an organisation holds the same preference - an untenable assumption.
3.3 RESULTS SUMMARY
The results have been analysed and presented as follows:
- for the total set of responses (numbers of submissions and numbers of signatures);
- for each category of interest (numbers of submissions in all cases, numbers of signatures for individuals and farming interests); and
- for each geographical region.
When interpreting the bar graphs in this section, the reader is reminded of the varying vertical scales that have been used; also, that 51 submissions out of the total of 751 did not state a clear position, which means that the totals in the graphs will not usually equal the total number of submissions in each category.
All responses
Out of 751 submissions, fifty per cent are opposed to the application, forty-three per cent support it, and seven per cent do not state a clear preference either way.
On the basis of individual signatures, the balance shifts slightly towards the opposing view. Fifty-seven per cent of signatures are opposed to the application, forty per cent support it, and three per cent do not state a clear preference either way.
Figure 3.1; All Responses - both submissions and signatures
Figure 3.1 summarises the stances of all submitters across the five-point spectrum and reveals
the high degree of polarisation of over all interested parties. Figure 3.1 accounts for 700
submissions, the remaining 51 submissions being those which expressed no clear position.
Organisations with statutory responsibilities
The forty-six organisations with statutory responsibilities cover a wide range of interests. They include:
- government ministries and departments;
- regional councils and unitary authorities;
- district and city councils;
- conservation boards; and
- community boards.
Five regional councils or unitary authorities are members of the Applicant Group, along with the Office of the Commissioner of Crown Lands and NZ Federated Farmers (Inc.). Three of the applicant regional councils made submissions, as well as five constituent district councils (i.e. district councils within their regions).
On the basis of the submissions received, forty-six per cent of such statutory organisations support the application, thirty-five per cent oppose it, and seventeen per cent do not state a clear preference either way. The polarisation is less extreme than for the whole sample of submitters, with almost as many prepared to express qualified positions of support or opposition as those who express the more extreme views.
Figure 3.2 Statutory bodies - submissions
Figure 3.2 summarises the stances for
statutory bodies. It should be remembered that eight of them did not make their position
clear.
On the basis of the submissions received from these organisations, thirty-three per cent are in favour and sixty-seven per cent against the Application. Figure 3.3 summarises their stances, again showing a pattern that is less polarised as a group than the general sample. All declared a particular position.
Interests in landholding/land management and businesses related to livestock
The 245 submissions come mainly from the South Island farming community. Apart from individual farming families, numerous branches of Federated Farmers made submissions, as did landcare groups, pest advisory groups, stock and station firms, fertiliser companies, veterinary firms and farm consultants.
Given the fact that Federated Farmers is a part of the Applicant Group, it is not surprising to see ninety per cent of this group of submissions supporting the Application, eight per cent opposing, and only two percent stating no clear position. The pattern is little different when all the signatures are counted, as is evident from Figure 3.4 and Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Interests in landholding/land management and businesses related to livestock - submissions and signatures
| Interests in landholding/land management | Interests in business related to livestock | ||
| Signatures | Submissions | Submissions | |
| unqualified support | 263 | 206 | 6 |
| qualified support | 9 | 8 | 1 |
| a clear statement of indifference | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| qualified opposition | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| unqualified opposition | 21 | 15 | 0 |
Interests in environmental protection, fishing and hunting, other recreational land use
Forty-one submissions were received from non-government organisations with interests in environmental protection, fishing and hunting and other recreational land use. These included many branches of the Royal Forest &Bird Protection Society, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, other conservation groups and environment centres, several regional Fish & Game Councils, their national organisation, several branches of the NZ Deerstalkers Association, and the Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ (Inc.).
The stances in this group of submissions mostly oppose the Application, with eighty per cent against, three per cent in support and seventeen per cent unclear.. The distribution is much the same when counted on the basis of signatures, as shown in Figure 3.5 and Table 3.2.
Figure 3.3 Scientific organisations - submissions
Scientific organisations
The nine scientific organisations incorporate several Crown Research Institutes, several scientific associations and societies, a New Zealand polytechnic, an English university research group, and a private research company in New Zealand.
Interests in animal welfare and rabbits
Twenty-three submissions in this group include numerous rabbit breeder enterprises and associations, several rabbit farms and rabbit meat processors, several processors of rabbit skins, as well as branches of the RSPCA and other similar groups.
In terms of submissions, with one exception of no clear position, this group is entirely opposed.
Organisations with statutory responsibilities
The forty-six organisations with statutory responsibilities cover a wide range of interests. They include:
- government ministries and departments;
- regional councils and unitary authorities;
- district and city councils;
- conservation boards; and
- community boards.
Five regional councils or unitary authorities are members of the Applicant Group, along with the Office of the Commissioner of Crown Lands and NZ Federated Farmers (Inc.). Three of the applicant regional councils made submissions, as well as five constituent district councils (i.e. district councils within their regions).
On the basis of the submissions received, forty-six per cent of such statutory organisations support the application, thirty-five per cent oppose it, and seventeen per cent do not state a clear preference either way. The polarisation is less extreme than for the whole sample of submitters, with almost as many prepared to express qualified positions of support or opposition as those who express the more extreme views.
Figure 3.2 summarises the stances for statutory bodies. It should be remembered that eight of them did not make their position clear.
Scientific organisations
The nine scientific organisations incorporate several Crown Research Institutes, several scientific associations and societies, a New Zealand polytechnic, an English university research group, and a private research company in New Zealand.
On the basis of the submissions received from these organisations, thirty-three per cent are in favour and sixty-seven per cent against the Application. Figure 3.3 summarises their stances, again showing a pattern that is less polarised as a group than the general sample. All declared a particular position.
Figure 3.4 Interests in landholding/land management and business related to livestock - submissions and signatures
Interests in landholding/land management and businesses related to livestock
The 245 submissions come mainly from the South Island farming community. Apart from individual farming families, numerous branches of Federated Farmers made submissions, as did landcare groups, pest advisory groups, stock and station firms, fertiliser companies, veterinary firms and farm consultants.
Given the fact that Federated Farmers is a part of the Applicant Group, it is not surprising to see ninety per cent of this group of submissions supporting the Application, eight per cent opposing, and only two percent stating no clear position. The pattern is little different when all the signatures are counted, as is evident from Figure 3.4 and Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Interests in landholding/land management and businesses related to livestock - submissions and signatures
| Interests in landholding/land management | Interests in business related to livestock | ||
| Signatures | Submissions | Submissions | |
| unqualified support | 263 | 206 | 6 |
| qualified support | 9 | 8 | 1 |
| a clear statement of indifference | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| qualified opposition | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| unqualified opposition | 21 | 15 | 0 |
Interests in environmental protection, fishing and hunting, other recreational land use
Forty-one submissions were received from non-government organisations with interests in environmental protection, fishing and hunting and other recreational land use. These included many branches of the Royal Forest &Bird Protection Society, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, other conservation groups and environment centres, several regional Fish & Game Councils, their national organisation, several branches of the NZ Deerstalkers Association, and the Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ (Inc.).
The stances in this group of submissions mostly oppose the Application, with eighty per cent against, three per cent in support and seventeen per cent unclear.. The distribution is much the same when counted on the basis of signatures, as shown in Figure 3.5 and Table 3.2.
Figure 3.5 Interests in Environmental protection, fishing and hunting, and other recreational land use - submissions and signitures
Table 3.2 Interests in environmental protection, fishing and hunting, and other recreational land use - submissions and signatures
| Interests in environmental protection | Interests in fishing/hunting | Interests in other recreational land use | ||
| Signatures | Submissions | Submissions | Submissions | |
| unqualified support | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| qualified support | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| a clear statement of indifference | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| qualified opposition | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| unqualified opposition | 33 | 20 | 7 | 1 |
Interests in animal welfare and rabbits
Twenty-three submissions in this group include numerous rabbit breeder enterprises and associations, several rabbit farms and rabbit meat processors, several processors of rabbit skins, as well as branches of the RSPCA and other similar groups.
In terms of submissions, with one exception of no clear position, this group is entirely opposed.
Figure 3.6 Interests in animal welfare and rabbits - submissions and signatures
| Signatures | Submissions | |
| Interests in business related to rabbits | 97 | 18 |
| Interests in animal welfare | 4 | 4 |
Community groups, national organisations, not included elsewhere
Eighteen submissions incorporate several local community groups, several Runanga, and a variety of national organisations, including the National Council of Women of New Zealand Inc., the Catholic Women’s League of New Zealand (Inc.), the NZ Institute of Landscape Architects (Inc.).
Figure 3.7 Community groups, national organisations, not included elsewhere - submissions
With two exceptions, this group of submissions opposes the Application.
Other Individuals
It is worth recalling that anyone who wrote a submission in a personal capacity (rather than representing an organisation) is treated in this analysis as an individual, even if they have particular expertise in areas of science or any other discipline. It should also be remembered, however, that individuals with interests in landholding and land management (e.g. farmers and their families) have been categorised elsewhere, because of this particular interest.
There were 368 such individual submissions, including a number of petitions. The corresponding tally of signatures is 1260.
On the basis of submissions, there is twenty per cent support and seventy-three per cent opposition. The pattern is a little more balanced, but nonetheless polarised, when signatures are counted - thirty-three per cent support and sixty-five per cent oppose the Application.
Figure 3.8 Individuals - submission and signatures
Submitters by geographical region
Recall that central government departments, national organisations and scientific organisations have been classified as having national coverage, and therefore do not feature in this regional analysis.
The split in numbers of submissions (with a clearly stated position) between North Island and South Island is 35% to 65%. Otago and Canterbury were the source of by far the most submissions.
Geographically, the only regions not predominantly opposed are Canterbury (polarised), Otago (predominantly in support) and Southland (polarised). These three regions are all represented in the Applicant Group.
The following table summarises responses for the regions of both islands, by submissions.
| Unqualified Support | Qualified Support | clear statrement of indifference | qualified opposition | unqulified opposition | |
| Northland | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Auckland | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 44 |
| Bay of Plenty | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 15 |
| Gisborne | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Waikato | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 22 |
| Taranaki | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Manawatu-Wanganui | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 18 |
| Hawkes Bay | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Wellington | 6 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 41 |
| Marlborough | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Tasman-Nelson | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 27 |
| West Coast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Canterbury | 80 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 59 |
| Otago | 175 | 7 | 0 | 9 | 34 |
| Southland | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12 |
The following table summarises responses for the regions of both islands, by signatures.
| Unqualified Support | Qualified Support | clear statrement of indifference | qualified opposition | unqulified opposition | |
| Northland | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| Auckland | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 74 |
| Bay of Plenty | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 17 |
| Gisborne | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Waikato | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 25 |
| Taranaki | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 9 |
| Manawatu-Wanganui | 3 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 22 |
| Hawkes Bay | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Wellington | 7 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 93 |
| Marlborough | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Tasman-Nelson | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 384 |
| West Coast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Canterbury | 109 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 254 |
| Otago | 534 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 36 |
| Southland | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 19 |
Contact for Enquiries
Manager, Strategic Science Team
MAF Biosecurity New Zealand
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0115
Fax: +64 4 894 0731
Contact this person
