Allan Barber: Questions over board's control of TB

The Animal Health Board (AHB) is an incorporated society formed to manage and implement the National Pest Management Strategy for bovine TB in New Zealand. Its members include all the beef, dairy and deer organisations and Local Government New Zealand.

The Crown is not a member, but is a major funding partner. Other sources of funding are the members, significantly every beef, dairy and deer farmer in the country, who pay levies to control the incidence and spread of TB, and regional councils which fund TB vector control of infected wild animals in Vector Risk Areas. The main sources of infection are possums and, to a lesser extent, ferrets.

The AHB's annual report contains a very reassuring assessment of the successful progress towards its principal objective of reducing the number of infected deer and cattle herds to 0.2 per cent annual prevalence by 2013. In theory, its operations will wind down to the point where there will be no mandate beyond 2013.

The report states that with herd infection rates at an all-time low, the board can shift from active control of TB to monitoring. While not wishing to downplay the importance of controlling TB or the success of the board, there are questions to be asked before accepting an extension of the agency's role into the future.

On closer examination of the fact, the board's annual operating costs have virtually doubled, disease control costs have risen by nearly $3 million or 18 per cent, Vector Risk Areas have increased from 34 per cent to almost 40 per cent of the country and farmers have paid an additional $15 million since 2001. Over the same four-year period, research expenditure has been static.

According to the chief executive there has been a decision to "bring in-house several core business functions". On July 1, the board began operation of its own disease control database, administration and in-house contact centre, all of which are claimed to bring savings in overall disease control expenditure.

Only recently, the Disease Management Information System has been described by farmers as a "bloody shambles". At this rate the anticipated savings will be some time in coming.

In 2003 the board opened up its contract delivery to a competitive tender process which resulted in two SOEs competing and being awarded over 90 per cent of the contracts, with the balance going to private vet practices. Farmer levies, previously $10 per head of livestock, rose by 40 per cent, before being reduced to $11.50 last year.

This expansion of in-house operations doesn't suggest the board is looking to wind down its operations any time soon, but rather indicates it is building up its bureaucracy to provide services that have previously been managed by other government agencies, such as AgriQuality with its National Livestock Database.

There are two key questions: first, whether AHB's strategy to reduce the incidence of TB to 0.2 per cent annual prevalence is either essential or cost-effective, especially since the World Animal Health Organisation has removed TB as a barrier to regulated trade; second, whether it is appropriate for the AHB to establish a national livestock identification system purely to control TB, when New Zealand's animal identification and traceability requirements have much wider relevance to issues of market access, public health and customer demands.

The role and relevance of the board in this broader context needs much closer scrutiny before it is given an extended mandate to increase the scope and size of its activities at significant cost.

* Allan Barber is a freelance writer and business consultant and former chief operating officer at Affco.