Speech to High Country Federated Farmers

Kate Wilkinson
11 June, 2010
Speech to High Country Federated Farmers

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

It's been a busy year in Government since I last spoke to you. We have endured a pretty heavy recession and emerged out the other side - although it is still tough out there. Unemployment is falling, there's more positivity in the economy and I have been promoted to Minister of Conservation. Perhaps that last one hasn't had the most impact on your lives just yet, but it's what brings me here today. There are two key issues that I intend to speak on this morning. Two things that we have in common - pests and the advocacy of our environment.

This morning I want to encourage you that we, the stewards of the high country - you as the farmers and me as the Minister responsible for public conservation land in the high country - have more in common than I think we often realise.

I think it's fair to say that too often in New Zealand we are only prepared to emphasise and remember the differences rather than reflect all of what we achieve together. In all my Ministerial portfolios I find that to be true with many of the groups I meet with. Much of the time is spent discussing what we disagree on, not what we can and are willing to do together. Perhaps that's just the nature of my job, but I think there is plenty of scope here to form a relationship based on shared interests.

I must emphasise that we share the common interest for preserving the high country for future generations - whether for farming, landscape and biodiversity protection or recreation.

Public conservation land constitutes about one third of the South Island high country. We are all stewards here. DOC, through Landcorp, has an association with Molesworth Station - 180,787 hectares home to New Zealand's biggest herd of beef cattle, numbering up to 10,000 beasts. DOC has also granted over 800 grazing licences on public conservation land.

We share the common purpose of managing alternative economic opportunities from our core business - particularly tourism opportunities.

We share the threats. Fire, pests and weeds do not respect boundaries. This means as neighbours with these common interests we must work together. We may be neighbours for a very long time - and we, like you, want to be good neighbours.

Canada Geese and pest management

Pest management is certainly a common interest. One issue I'm sure many of you are interested in is the control of Canada geese. The Wildlife Protection Review concluded (not unexpectedly) that this goose is a problem and isn't being managed as effectively as we would like. Something you already knew.

I have spoken with Fish and Game and Federated Farmers to get their views on the current situation. It probably comes as no surprise that they have differing perspectives, as does DOC. Today provides me with an opportunity to air my own thoughts on the matter. No decision has been made at this point as the matter is yet to go before Cabinet, so your feedback will be helpful.

Currently Canada geese are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act and are managed by Fish and Game. Farmers and any other property owners require the consent of game licence holders and have to pay to control the geese where required.

I don't consider this requirement to be of much benefit. It creates friction between farmers and Fish and Game and generally results in frustration. A possible solution is to keep Canada geese in Schedule 1, but allow farmers to shoot them on or over their own property. Poison would not be allowed. Shooting only, with shotguns or rifles. It would not matter whether the goose was on the ground or in the air, but hunting could not be offered for reward.

Fish and Game would remain responsible for managing the overall population of Canada geese in New Zealand. They have made it clear that they want to retain this responsibility. As far as public land is concerned, their role will remain unchanged.

The proposed change is focused on private property and also aviation safety. It would allow farmers to take charge of troublesome geese on their own land, while freeing up Fish and Game to focus on managing these birds on public land and waterways. It makes sense that property owners are allowed to manage these geese when they are at those pest levels. I know they can be quite tricky to deal with, but a few shotgun rounds may dissuade them from settling on your land - but they may settle on your neighbour's land. To classify them as a pest, however, would absolve Fish and Game of responsibility and potentially involve heaps of regional ratepayers' funds with formulation of pest management strategies.

As I said, this proposal has not been taken to Cabinet, so your feedback would be appreciated.

Canada geese aren't the only problem animal farmers deal with. Mention rabbits or possums in terms of endearment to any high country farmer or DOC worker and you can expect a well-aimed retort. DOC recently took the initiative to get resource consents for the use of aerial 1080 in Canterbury, which has now been taken up by farmers. The AHB, regional councils and DOC work together closely and collegially on the battle against possums up and down New Zealand - whether the method is trapping, bait stations or the use of 1080 from the air.

You are probably aware of the noise generating from the West Coast against the use of 1080 there. I'm haven't heard those same sentiments being echoed here. DOC and farmers tend to hold the same view on 1080, in that it's the most effective means we have available to control the possum population. If we had a viable alternative then we would be grabbing it with both hands. Sending out thousands of New Zealanders into our most inhospitable terrain by foot armed with traps is not a real alternative. You would be surprised by how many letters I've received advocating this approach. We would probably lose as many people as possums.

The loss in production as a consequence of established pests in New Zealand is estimated at $1.15 billion each year. There are opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of how we manage this problem. There is currently no national direction for regional pest management strategies, which has led to tension and inconsistency across the country. My colleague David Carter has been working on a discussion document that will raise these issues and seek a new direction. Obviously we're not talking about just possums and rabbits; we're talking about every pest that poses a problem to our primary industries and environment. There is plenty to discuss and DOC will be working with MAF and Biosecurity in areas of shared interest.

Conservation and Advocacy

Conservation is also a responsibility we share. Across New Zealand - in addition to public conservation land - 110,000 hectares of private land now have QEII covenants protecting our biodiversity. $4.5 million has been granted to farmers from bio-funds to protect biodiversity on their farm land.

I think it is important to emphasise the National Party's Policy is to encourage DOC to take a more constructive role when dealing with rural communities over conservation on private land - to that end we have increased funding for the QEII National Trust and Nga Whenua Rahui in the past two Budgets.

And so what umbrella do these shared interests fall under? We might do it differently in our own way - but we do it. We might have different expectations or reasons - but we share a common cause - and that is advocacy for the environment.

The advocacy role for both of us is broad. For DOC it also extends to national education projects, events and campaigns, sponsorships and partnership. To that extent DOC engages with the community, local authorities and organisations in a range of different ways, from awareness through to involvement.

Building community awareness is a key part of DOC's advocacy role. Involvement and capability occurs at the conservancy and area office level with volunteers and community groups.

As DOC is a devolved organisation with a local presence it is able to have a direct dialogue with farmers. This dialogue can be challenging. Even with the same goal in mind it is easy to disagree on the path. I know there has been frustration among farmers over DOC's advocacy role. I've spoken to some of you in person about this previously.

These advocacy roles are applied across specific legislation DOC administers, including the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act 1953, the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, and the National Parks Act 1980.

Advocacy is core to DOC's work. It is provided for in section 6 of the Conservation Act. The Conservation Act does not, however, specify the advocacy methods to be used. These functions are subject to the directions of the Minister - me. I am very aware of the criticisms directed at DOC over its advocacy role.

These criticisms have come from several directions, in some cases farmers, in others environmentalists. DOC can in one instance be accused of wasting tax-payers money by pushing too hard and the next be slammed as being in the pocket of big business for engaging in negotiations.

Perceptions don't always match reality. But where there are criticisms, they should be looked at and addressed. Last year the Opposition accused me of trying to shut down DOC's advocacy role purely because I believed it was important these criticisms were looked at. You have to ask yourself what they were being so precious about.

One of the concerns was that DOC was getting involved in cases where it was effectively the taxpayer taking on the ratepayer. That certainly doesn't seem sensible on the face of it, but then the reality could also be quite different. DOC is aware of these sensitivities. It isn't in the habit of throwing money at the courts without good reason. It is getting better at detailing its position, being more open about its reasoning, and responding to criticism. This can only be a good thing.

What influences DOC in its advocacy options?

Natural and historic resources of international or national significance facing imminent threat or irreversible loss are a priority for DOC advocacy in the Resource Management Act context. It has a duty to raise those issues. We could be talking about a dairy farm conversion or application to build a dam.

In practice, applicants and developers will often come to DOC to discuss their development proposals, before lodging their application with the consent authority and I encourage that. DOC is also asked to provide information on natural resources and ecology from its databases and files.

Where an applicant seeks its views, it will set out any concerns, along with suggestions for resolution. Where DOC has no concerns, the option of providing a letter in support may follow or asking for a proposal to be amended to meet any concerns it may have raised. Discussions with Federated Farmers indicated that this approach works well and is supported by farmers. In the end, this type of engagement can help lower the costs to everyone involved.

Environment Ministry figures show that over 50,000 resource consent applications are made annually. The majority of notified applications are of no interest or little interest with regard to conservation. DOC is involved in around a dozen appeals a year at most, the majority of which it joins other parties at a cost of about $160,000 - not the bottomless pockets some may think.

Conservation is going to come face-to-face with development much more regularly now. This is the reality. Not everyone is going to be happy with the result or the process. This Government is mindful of being a good steward of the land, as you are. You want your future generations to enjoy the beautiful countryside that you know, just as we do. It is easy to forget that DOC and farmers share many interests. We all have that same responsibility of stewardship of what I believe is the best country in the world.

Thank you.

ENDS