Professor Simon More:

That is a good question. I will need to revert with clarification, but I will offer my best understanding. I believe it was first identified in deer in the 1970s, and it quickly became clear that it was in populations. It was not necessarily at high levels - my understanding is that TB in white-tailed deer has never been at a high level - but there was no explanation other than it being self-sustaining in deer. Once that was clear, the questions changed. If we know that it is self-sustaining in deer, we can investigate whether there is evidence to support the view that a farm being close to deer is risky. If that is the case, it provides some evidence of spill-back to cattle. To be sure, though, I would like to seek clarification from our Michigan colleagues and revert through the clerk.

I will make a further point that might be useful. It is a story that relates to the issue of industry engagement. The Australian programme started in the 1970s and made rapid progress from the south heading north. It got to the Kimberleys, country where not all of the cattle can be found. In the north west, it is difficult country to muster. The programme was run by what were called the "Canberra bureaucrats". The scientists and bureaucrats in Canberra decided that, from that point forward, they would have to start depopulating properties. The property owners in the north were incensed, and quite reasonably so. The whole programme stopped. For six months, there was no action at all. Eventually, the federal agriculture Minister stepped in and said that, from that point forward, producers - farmers - in the industry would be involved and the decision-making board would comprise 50% farmers and 50% bureaucrats. The latter were concerned and wondered whether the farmers would make the hard decisions. A key turning point for Australia was when the Minister said that, from then on, if the board comprised 50% farmers, 50% of the costs would be shared by them as well, a subject that Deputy Cahill mentioned. That was not the case previously.

What happened was interesting. The programme fundamentally changed, becoming much more ruthless. The farmers realised it was their money. While they were much more compassionate towards their own, they realised that, if they were to rid the country of TB, they could not only make easy decisions. They had to make the hard ones as well. The same happened in New Zealand. From that point forward, it became a genuine partnership between industry and the Government. It was a fundamental turning point in 1984. They eventually eradicated TB in cattle and buffalo in 2002.

This is not just a question of risk-based trading. Rather, it is about the whole package. We need to sit everyone down, collectively pay and collectively make decisions, which has not been the case to date.