Interdepartmental Consultation on Risk Analyses and Import Health Standards under section 22 of The Biosecurity Act 1993

1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1.1 The purpose of this document is to set out the Biosecurity Council’s policy on how departments should consult with each other when preparing risk analyses and issuing, amending or revoking import health standards (IHSs), where the risks under consideration might affect the responsibilities of other departments involved in biosecurity.

1.2 This policy covers those departments of state with operational responsibility for biosecurity: the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Health.

1.3 This document sets out a policy and process by which biosecurity departments will fulfill their minimum legal obligations to consult with other departments, but also goes beyond that minimum standard to develop a workable and constructive way of cooperating. The obligation for interdepartmental consultation is contained in s. 22(8) of the Biosecurity Act 1993:

(8) Before making a recommendation to the Director-General in accordance with this section the chief technical officer must give notice of the intention to make the recommendation to the chief executive of every department of State whose responsibilities for natural resources or human health may be adversely affected by the issue, amendment, or revocation of the relevant standard.

1.4 This policy does not detract from any department’s broader responsibility to consult when developing risk analyses or IHSs, as required by ss. 22(6) and 22(7) of the Biosecurity Act:

(6) Before making a recommendation to the Director-General on the issue or amendment of an import health standard, the chief technical officer must, unless the standard needs to be issued or amended urgently, or unless the chief technical officer considers that the amendment is minor, consult with those persons considered by the chief technical officer to be representative of the classes of persons having an interest in the standard.

(7) The consultation may be on the import health standard or on a document that analyses or assesses the risks associated with the goods or class of goods to which the goods belong.

2 CONTEXT

2.1 The four biosecurity departments have statutory responsibility to make decisions on the importation of risk goods; which may, among other things, pose risks to human, animal or plant health. Under section 22(1) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 their chief technical officers (CTOs) make recommendations to the Director-General of MAF for import health standards (IHSs), which specify the requirements for the effective management of risks associated with the importation of risk goods, to be issued, amended or revoked. The DG’s authority to issue IHSs is delegated toMAF CTOs, and the authority of MAF CTOs to make recommendations is delegated to MAF technical staff.

2.2 The operational responsibilities of a department might be affected by the risks to be addressed by an IHS developed by another department, or by the measures imposed by that standard.

2.3 The consultative process set out in section 3 of this document will enable departments to communicate any concerns regarding risk analyses and IHSs at an early stage so these concerns can be addressed. Where departments are unable to agree on how biosecurity risks are best managed, technical staff should refer unresolved issues to their respective CTOs who may in turn refer issues to the Biosecurity Council.

2.4 Departments may, after participation in this process, still wish to make submissions during public consultation on risk analyses and proposed IHSs. It is the expectation of the Biosecurity Council that departmental submissions should, apart from being based on sound technical expertise, reflect a reasonable knowledge of the legal and policy framework of the Biosecurity Act and of relevant international obligations.

2.5 Because the revocation of IHSs stops trade and would not normally adversely affect the biosecurity responsibilities of another department, notification (rather than consultation) is all that is required by the process outlined in section 4.

3 PROCESS RELATING TO RISK ANALYSES AND THE ISSUING OR AMENDING OF IHSs

3.1 A department undertaking a risk analysis or proposing to issue or amend IHSs (the ‘lead department’) will invite input from departments whose biosecurity responsibilities might be affected, before it begins such a task. The exception to this commitment is where a standard is required urgently or where any amendment is minor.

3.2 This invitation will take the form of an invitation to participate in a ‘project team’, which will determine the scope of the risk analysis or IHS and outline a plan for its completion. Participation in the project team requires appropriate technical expertise, and a reasonable knowledge of the legal and policy framework of the Biosecurity Act and relevant international obligations. When invited by a lead department to nominate staff to take part in a project team, all relevant departments are expected to respond by the deadline given.

3.3 The risk analysis or IHS will usually be developed by a ‘working group’ in the lead department, but in some cases this work might be contracted by the lead department to an external contractor and reviewed by a working group. Other biosecurity departments might take part in the working group if the potential impact on their responsibilities is sufficient.

3.4 Affected departments, directly or through their representative on the project team will be given the opportunity to consider the draft risk analysis or IHS before it is released for public consultation.

3.5 The working group will analyse all public submissions and report accordingly to the project team.

3.6 Affected departments, directly or through their representative on the project team will be given the opportunity to again consider proposed sanitary or phytosanitary (risk-mitigation) measures before the working group finalises the risk analysis or IHS.

3.7 Separate IHSs based on a risk analysis which has undergone this process will not be further consulted on in this way, but can be issued by the lead department subject only to the notification process set out in sections 3.7 and 3.8 below. Where an existing IHS allows for dispensations or equivalence (deviations from the exact condition of an IHS which provide no less health guarantee), they may be granted by a CTO, either for specific consignments or in general, without further consultation or notification.

3.8 The relevant chief technical officer (CTO) in the lead department will propose that the IHS be issued, and advise the chief executive of all other biosecurity departments (attention: CTO or their nominee) accordingly at least five working days before the IHS is issued. (A copy of the draft IHS will be sent at that time).

3.9 The CTO (or MAF Director-General) may then issue the IHS.

4 PROCESS REGARDING THE REVOCATION OF IHSs

4.1 The relevant chief technical officer (CTO) in the department which issued the IHS will propose that the IHS be revoked, and advise the chief executive of all other biosecurity departments (attention: CTO or their nominee) accordingly at least five working days before the IHS is revoked. (A copy of the IHS to be revoked will be sent at that time).

4.2 The CTO (or MAF Director-General) may then revoke the IHS.

John Hellström
Chair, Biosecurity Council
17 December 1998

Page last updated: 12 June 2008