Pest destruction at the crossroads

Press, 16 July 1982, Page 17

Pest destruction at the crossroads

The conference last week of the South Island Pest Destruction Boards' Association was a watershed one, according to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Agriculture. Mr Rex Austin. The boards had to meet the challenge of the freezing of the level of Government funding with more cost-effec-tive methods of pest control and increased rating.

"I have been advised that the Agricultural Pest Destruction Council (A.P.D.C.) has requested that all boards contribute a minimum of 40 per cent by way of rates for the 1982-83 year." he said.

"It is apparent that some boards are unable to increase revenue through rating. or can do so only fractionally, because of the 60 cents per hectare limit set in the Pests Destruction Act.

"This is a particularly important conference and the remits relating to maximum rating reflect part of the provisions required to overcome just one of the difficulties we face.

"While many boards have responded well to the challenge of cost efficiency, some boards are still not following the policies or control methods recommended by the national council and its technical advisers. ■ "The North Island conference supported the view that the council should use its statutory" powers to change the policies of such boards.

"I note that the council is at present rewriting the Agricultural Pests Destruction Act with a view to submitting a new draft to Government. "The movement would seem to have the opportunity to review both the function and powers of the council and the boards to ensure that they are still appropriate and adequate for the immediate future. “I believe the outcome will determine your effectiveness for the rest of this century and commend you for your initiatives,” said Mr Austin.

He explained that the Government’s contribution to pest destruction has been frozen for the 1981-82,1982-83 and 1983-84 financial years at $2l million in total, or $7 million each year. Mr Austin said that last financial year around $ll million was spent throughout New Zealand on pest destruction and ratepayers con-

tributed $4.4 million, or 40 per cent. North Island ratepayers contributed an average of 53 per cent of the money spent by their boards, but only 33 per cent of the money spent in the South Island came from the ratepayers. Many South Island boards have protested that the freeze on taxpayer funding has necessitated savage increases in ratepayer contributions, particularly in boards with areas of high country. Mr Austin repeated that the Government did not intend to raise its contribution but would hold firm to its policy of trying to reduce Government expenditure. The funding situation has caused considerable acrimony within the pest destruction movement, with the A.P.D.C. coming in for a lot of criticism over its distribution of the Government contribution. The A.P.D.C. had sent a telegram to Mr Austin the morning before he spoke to the conference requesting the Government to establish an independent review committee. nominated by the A.P.D.C., to examine the present objectives, functions and activities of the pest destruction organisation and to report on and make recommendations as necessary. Mr Austin said he wondered how independent such a review committee would be if it were nominated by the A.P.D.C. He said he would take the telegram as a signal'that the A.P.D.C. wanted to begin discussions on that matter. In addressing the conference the chairman of the A.P.D.C., Mr G. Findley, said: “Some of you people are still . trying to eradicate rabbits and have been trying to get the last rabbit for years. "And as far as I know none of you have succeeded.” He said the field situation in the South Island was the worst it had been in 10 years but boards now had less money than before. “The future looks a bit on the bleak side,” he said. “But we should adopt a more positive attitude to this adversity and boards have already demonstrated that ■ there is a continuing need for a pest destruction movement. "Most boards have made and levied their rates and

) some have increased their level of rating by up to 100 ; per cent, o this in itself gives I me some encouragement. "The role of board trustees l is going to be very difficult in the next year dr sb. You ■ are going to have many ratepayers paying more money' but getting less service. "It will be most important that all ratepayers are informed what the board's aims and objects are, why they have to pay more and get’ less return from their money. "You can make money go further by co-operating with your neighbours." He said there was still room for more amalgamations of boards and he predicted that the current funding squeeze would mean that some smaller boards would go out of existence. "Don't be led into the trap of spreading the money too thinly. "There should be fewer jobs done thoroughly," he said. Mr Findley said that the A.P.D.C. was endeavouring to cut its own expenditure to the bone and expected to save up to $lOO,OOO from this year's budget. It had appointed liaison members to various areas of the country to save the expense of sending committees “all round the country.” It intended to have less meetings and would make savings on accommodation costs for council members attending meetings in Wellington. New Zealand could not afford to completely remove the taxpayers’ contribution to pest destruction, said Mr Findley, for to do so would be to get back to the old situation of each farmer deciding what level of infestation suited him. Boards would also decide what level of infestation suited them, or that they could afford. The field adviser for the A.P.D.C., Mr Peter Nelson, said that there were no major changes in the actual methods of control available to pest destruction boards at the present, nor was there likely to be in the foreseeable future. “There is, however, a definite change in the method of approach to many of the future control methods now in use.” he said.

"In the past many boards carried out what is known as an on demand’ service to ratepayers, controlling pests as they were seen or reported.’ "In fact, practising in some cases an eradication policy. "This is changing because of the massive reductions in staff over the past 10 years. In 1972 we employed 1200 staff on approximately 180 pest boards; today we employ approximately 450 staff on 96 pest boards.’

"By the end of this year this number is likely to be reduced still further to around 400. “Because of these reductions it is now physically impossible to maintain the same hunting pressure on the pests as in the past. “We have to date kept the pests under reasonable control by more effective use of better trained staff. "But to keep the pests at levels where they do not affect or are not likely to affect agricultural produc-

tion (as we are required to do under the Act) it will be necessary to carefully evaluate ourselves and our boards to ensure that we use only cost-effective methods of control." He said in the long term boards would have to practice "pest management" using only the recognised methods. "With rising costs it now costs between $3 and $5 a hectare for small hand-poi-soning operations and between $lO and $2O per hec-

tare for large scale poisoning operations. "Because of restrictions in finance many boards have been looking closely at their operations and have been reorganising themselves, phasing out the less effective, more labour intensive control methods (block method of control) for more centralisation and the use of mobile gangs — in fact carefully evaluating staffing and vehicle levels required to fulfill their obligations under the Agricultural Pest Destruction Act." he said.