Environment Waikato (EW) has a policy regarding pest management which provides for a land-owner to select an alternative form of treatment but if it is going to cost significantly more, then the land-owner is required to pay the difference. When this was initially being discussed, I was somewhat uncomfortable with it. But then I compared it to the health system. If you get public health treatment, you will be given a certain course of treatment. If there is an alternative course which costs more, you can elect to undergo that but you are required to pay for it. There are parallels that can be drawn.
And to get straight to the point, this issue is really only going to arise if the determined method of treatment is aerial 1080. Many people are uncomfortable with such aerial application and do not want it on their land.
In early June 2010, two land-owners came to the Regional Pest Management Committee and made submissions by way of a deputation. This avenue is provided to land-owners if they are unable to reach an agreement with staff. The two land-owners were very genuine and hard-working farmers. I am the Chairman of that committee. As I told the meeting, the issue was not the rights and wrongs of one form of control compared to another. The land-owners are entitled to hold their views and they do not need to be cross-examined or criticised for those views.
In my view, the issue before the committee was whether we had a process, is that process fair and was it applied fairly and equitably. The land-owners presented evidence which raised some questions, at least in my mind, in this area. Because of this, I decided that there would be value in forming a sub-committee to look into all the aspects of these two cases in order to find a solution to the impasse. I moved a resolution to that effect and it was passed unanimously. A sub-committee of myself and Andra Neeley (the local Councillor) together with two staff are meeting with the land-owners to find that solution.
I have a firm view that EW needs to have a robust and fair process in this area. Land-owners who wish to have alternative control are entitled to have the cost of the two options put before them and then they can make a final decision. The costs for the two different methods need to be obtained by way of a competitive process which ensures that there are the usual commercial pressures on pricing.
I am looking into this area and I will be discussing my views with the CEO. I will keep you posted.
