Page 10

FT-Jul17-eMag-1

10 JULY 2017 KIWIFRUIT Kiwifruit Claim seeks to PRODUCERS HEAD TO HIGH COURT Seven years after the devastating PSA-V outbreak which decimated the New Zealand kiwifruit industry, more than 210 kiwifruit claimants will finally get their day in the High Court next month. Kiwifruit Claim chairman John Cameron overviews what his claimants are alleging, and why they believe the blame lies with the Government hold the Government and the Ministry of Primary Industries to account for the significant losses suffered by growers, whose lives and livelihoods were ripped apart by PSA…and for many, the impact is ongoing. There were growers who were wiped out, and faced with no crops and plummeting values of their orchards, lost their businesses and were forced to sell at heavily discounted prices. Those that survived often suffered a complete loss of income, taking on huge debts to replant. Many growers are now only just beginning to get back to pre-PSA production levels after seven years. The Kiwifruit Claimants are adamant that MPI should never have allowed kiwifruit pollen into New Zealand. Put simply, we believe the PSA outbreak in October 2010 would never have happened if MPI had followed its own protocols under the Biosecurity Act. By 2004, MPI had identified that PSA was a biosecurity risk to the industry and banned the importation of kiwifruit plant material, except in tightly controlled situations. However, we say MPI failed to properly consider at the same time whether kiwifruit pollen could carry PSA, and did not also prohibit the Those that survived often suffered a complete loss of income, taking on huge debts to replant. The Ministry acted appropriately in its treatment of Psa-V as a biosecurity threat and acted in accordance with its international obligations and with scientific knowledge available at the time. MPI did not “let” Psa into the country by allowing pollen imports to New Zealand. Various studies are inconclusive as to exactly how the bacterium entered New Zealand.There are other reasons MPI is not liable for the claim. MPI argues that there is a statutory immunity from civil proceedings in regard to actions taken under the Biosecurity Act, and that applies to this proceeding. Any liability on the Crown for losses as a result of a biosecurity incursion is covered by a statutory compensation scheme. In the case of Psa-V, a specific assistance scheme was offered after THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES REACTS


FT-Jul17-eMag-1
To see the actual publication please follow the link above