Time to prepare for ID scheme

It does appear they are struggling for justification.

Janette, it is not just a lie but one of those big lies that if repeated often enough becomes accepted.

Some background: The genesis of this current scheme goes back to at least 2002 when MAF produced a paper setting out proposals for a national animal indentification scheme. The reasons stated were much the same as today but then it was clearer that the main justification was response to a foot and mouth outbreak.

MAF has remained on the 2002 theme ever since – initially calling submissions and forming working parties but increasingly moving the process internally and away from public scrutiny. At one point the system was designed and I believe being delivered.

But now, nine years from 2002, we are going to borrow from a working but far from ideal Autralian system. Our trading markets are supposedly insisting all livestock belong to this scheme – nothing else is acceptable. MAFs prior scheme, and their one prior to that wouldn't have been acceptable?

I recall attending a presentation at Waikato University in 2004 organised by a government department (MFAT/MED?) where an Italian engineering professor was offering NZ an animal traceabilty system that he had developed, was already working and which met EU compliance needs. He was effectively laughed out of the meeting – what could an Italian engineering professor possibly offer to NZ agriculture?

The system the Italian engineering professor had developed was commercially motivated (i.e. driven by farmers), compliant with EU traceability requirements and worked with both RF ID and standard animal identifiers. It was already in operation. It had been developed at no cost to government or farmers – funding had been provided by companies wishing to ensure integration of peripheral equipment such as scales.

The misplaced arrogance of NZ agriculture and bureaucracy! Seven years and millions (hundreds of millions?) of dollars later NZ is now expecting to buy/borrow an Australian compliance driven system, and no-one appears to be being held accountable for the waste in between.

While I am a fan of traceability systems from my time researching the subject, one conclusion was that the drivers behind such systems are important. Traceability systems developed for commercial purposes generally provide high benefits – sometimes spectacular - and will nearly always satisfy all requirements for compliance with traceability. Traceability systems developed for compliance purposes (designed by bureaucrats for bureacrats) have high costs and few benefits beyond compliance – in fact they likely have negative effects by crowding out many of the other benefits of traceability.

Why is the statement “Our trading markets are insisting that all livestock eventually be involved in this scheme to give accountability to quality assurances on animal health.” a lie?

1.Any number of systems are capable of meeting the requirements of trading partners and such system(s):
a) Don't need to be a single centrally controlled systems
b) Don't need to be driven by bureaucrats and compliance, and would provide much greater benefits if driven by commercial entities than bureaucrats
c) In part already exist

2.The system we are getting is a poor choice, has the wrong drivers, but fits MAF's other agendas.

3.This system or any other do not of themselves guarantee accountability to quality assurances on animal health.

There are issues other then big lie - the system we are getting is built dependent on a technology that may have been superceded in 15 years time.