The Kiwifruit Claim says a win in the High Court will provide accountability for New Zealand’s growers, many of whom were severely impacted, or wiped out by Psa-V in 2010.
The New Zealand High Court will begin the 12 weeks trial next month to decide whether the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) was responsible for letting in the destructive strain into the country through its biosecurity measures. 212 claimants are seeking compensation for significant losses suffered by kiwifruit growers and the industry, after the outbreak in November 2010.
“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," Kiwifruit Claim chairman John Cameron said.
Psa-V was first discovered in Japan in 1989, and can ultimately cause the death of kiwifruit vines. More recently it was found in China and Italy, throughout the mid-2000's. A 2012 report by the Sapere Research Group estimated the cost to the New Zealand industry over the next 15 years would reach $885million.
"A positive court decision will provide the Kiwifruit growers with accountability while also ensuring that if there has been damage caused by MPI's negligence, they accept financial responsibility," Mr Cameron said. "We also don't want this type of crisis to ever happen again and are therefore seeking assurances that MPI can be on notice to all the Primary Industry grower/ farmers as we expect their job (bio-security) to be done with both accountability and transparency."
In the claim, headed by Seeka Kiwifruit Industries and Strathboss Kiwifruit Limited, it says 1,226 New Zealand kiwifruit orchards, or 37 per cent, were identified as being infected with Psa-V (one of several figures denied by the MPI in their defence).
It is the main argument that the Ministry failed to properly consider the specific risks that importing kiwifruit pollen posed to New Zealand when an importer applied to import kiwifruit pollen from China. That included properly considering whether kiwifruit pollen could carry the Psa bacteria, and failing to take any steps after being alerted by a formal notification about the outbreak of a virulent strain of the Psa bacteria in Europe.
“By taking shortcuts, MPI failed to identify and consider the fact that commercial pollen is always contaminated with plant material, and failed to identify the risk of Psa being introduced with infected pollen,” Mr Cameron said. "The Kiwifruit Claimants say MPI was wrong to allow imports of pollen – the risk of transmission of Psa was too high."
The Ministry has denied a large section of the claim, pointing out the research available then was different compared to now, in hindsight.
"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," an MPI spokesperson said. "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."
It has denies that it should have undertaken a specific formal risk analysis for the importation of kiwifruit pollen. In MPI's defence it states that "there was no scientific evidence at that time that Psa could be transmitted by pollen", and that "MPI’s officers were aware of the risk of contamination of pollen by bacteria and other pests, but not of any risk of transmission".
Furthermore it argues that it has immunity from civil proceedings for actions taken under the Biosecurity Act. Instead any loses is covered by a statutory compensation scheme for growers, which in this case amounted to $25million, matched by a payment from industry.
To the claimants, that is not enough, saying many growers are now only just beginning to get back to pre-Psa production levels, and still have higher debt that they took on to survive.
"Biosecurity is a critical function for New Zealand, and our primary producers and economy are heavily reliant on MPI protecting our borders," Mr Cameron said. "We firmly believe that MPI owed a duty of care to the kiwifruit industry when performing its border security functions under the Biosecurity Act."
Zespri is not involved in the court proceedings, referring to its initial statement in 2014 where it says the industry will prosper by working with the Government, not against it.
"Ultimately it was growers’ choice to participate in the Claim and we respect the rights of growers to do so and now they will have their case heard," Zespri spokesperson Rachel Lynch said. "Given the matter is soon to be subject to a legal process, it would be inappropriate to comment further."
The claim hearing begins on August 7, in Wellington.