I am of the firm view that some of the processes and procedures utilised by EW at present are in need of review. One of these is in the area of animal pest control projects. In the time that I have been involved with Council as Chairman of the Regional Pest Management Committee, there has been a number of complaints from land-owners complaining about the way in which they have been treated. Any analysis of their complaints will support my belief that review is required. There is some foundation to their complaints.
At present, when a pest management project is being considered, the project is put through a process which establishes where it sits in the priority queue. Funding is limited for obvious reasons and is likely to be so for some time. Therefore, we cannot do every project. The Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) was issued during the last Council term. It was appealed but it has subsequently been sorted out between the various parties and is now operative.
One provision under the RPMS provides that where aerial 1080 has been selected as the best method, if a land owner wishes to have land based methods used instead, then the land owner is required to meet any difference in cost if this is significant. This being the case, this provision then imposes upon the Council the requirement to ensure that any price obtained for the land based method has been fairly and competitively obtained and, furthermore, that it is seen to be so.
In my view, this is an area which has been the foundation of many of the complaints received in the past.
Presently, the Council utilises the services of contractors to do much of the preliminary consultation when a pest management project is being implemented. This has the consequence of land-owners possibly being approached by a number of contractors to determine what the land-owners wishes may or may not be. Inevitably, there are communication break-downs and this has led to some of the problems encountered in the past.
It is my view that the initial consultation must be carried out by EW staff. The staff should make contact with the individual land-owners, provide a map of the property and have that confirmed by the land-owner. This is also the time to determine any concerns regarding control methods, any particular farm practices or timetables and the like. I think it is important to note that if a land owner does not wish to have aerial 1080, then that is their right. They should not be cross-examined, criticised or bullied.
At this point of time, the control method will not be known. If the land-owner is willing to accept aerial 1080 if it is later proposed, then there should be sign-off to that effect. In the event that the land-owner does not want aerial 1080, information about the policy under the RPMS regarding any significant increase in cost should be provided to the land-owner. The staff member would then arrange for that particular property to be separately identified and when the area is publicly tendered, the fact that an individual price for a land based method for this property is required.
Once tendered publicly, the various tenderers would submit their prices. Where there is a land-owner who wishes land based methods, then the individual price that has been obtained can be discussed with them and they can make a final decision as to method.
I have been asked about the increased costs of using staff for this consultation. I believe it will be reasonably cost neutral. You can bet your bottom dollar that the contractor’s time to do the consultation is factored into their price – it would be a fairly significant cost for them. If they no longer need to do this part of it, then the contractors prices should reflect this.
But Council needs to get control over this important aspect of it relationship with land owners. We cannot continue with the same process that has been used in the past.
This is the basis of what I have been discussing with other councillors and the CEO. I have now put a paper to the CEO for consideration and debate. But I know it will provide better value to the land owner and to the Council. And it brings about fairness and transparency to the process.
Simon Friar
