Editorial: Honesty best policy and it has paid off

Agriculture and trade officials, particularly those based in foreign capitals, deserve considerable credit for keeping the lid on this country's latest foot-and-mouth scare. While the letter claiming the disease had been deliberately released on Waiheke Island was immediately deemed a probable hoax, such denunciation was no guarantor of damage limitation. Mere threats of this nature are apt to close overseas borders to animals and animal products, and to draw a sharp reaction from financial markets. It is impossible to overstate what is at stake for a country that continues to draw almost half its export revenue from farm livestock.

Duly, almost half a cent was taken off the New Zealand dollar's exchange value when news of the possible outbreak reached brokers. But it is a measure of the work done by officials that the damage to the kiwi proved temporary. Immediate briefings to 50 trading partners provided transparency and reassurance, an atmosphere of calm and, in time, the appropriate market response.

Overseas ports have remained fully open to New Zealand meat, wool and dairy products, with the exception of a case-by-case approach adopted by Mexico. In essence, the potential damage to exports has been almost totally eliminated. Compare that to the situation in 1981 when Australia and Japan quickly imposed a temporary ban after learning of a foot-and-mouth scare on a Temuka farm.

Speed and transparency have been the keys to this success. No time was wasted getting diplomats on the job, and briefings in Wellington have delivered regular updates. This is exactly the right approach. Potentially ruinous scenarios, such as that on Waiheke, gather potency if attempts are made to keep them under wraps. Rumour and speculation replace fact, and soon flash around the world.

Although this scare was quickly identified as a probable hoax, that could never temper the on-the-ground response on Waiheke. The risk must be treated as real until it can be discounted. It was necessary, for example, to impose an immediate ban on the movement of livestock and associated risk material from the island.

If there has been a blemish in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry strategy, it concerns the notification of Waiheke farmers. Advice to this group, which should have been an integral part of the reaction, seems not to have happened in many cases. Yesterday morning the ministry said only 18 of Waiheke's 39 farmers had been contacted.

This, it seems, was not for want of trying. But some Queen St cockies - small-scale farmers who live off the island - proved hard to locate. This is unsatisfactory, given the potential damage of foot and mouth, the rapidity with which it can spread and the alarm that spreads throughout a farming community. Perhaps the ministry requires a database that enables it to contact all farmers, big or small, in such circumstances.

Officials also, quite correctly, reminded New Zealanders at large of the dangers of foot-and-mouth disease, and the need to be alert. But this message was undermined somewhat by reassurances that there was little likelihood of someone smuggling a vial of it into this country. Clearly, the rigour of, and international respected for, New Zealand's biosecurity controls did not stop the importing of the rabbit-killing calicivirus. The message to New Zealanders should be unequivocal: our proximity to Asia makes us vulnerable to outbreaks of the disease, and constant vigilance is a must.

The 1981 Temuka scare provided the template for official reaction to foot-and-mouth scares. Its origin - blisters on pigs on a single farm - was much different from the malice at play on Waiheke, but valuable knowledge and experience have been carried forward. This latest threat suggests lessons of a different type. But, most importantly, it also confirms the right furrows are being ploughed.