Federated Farmers chief executive Conor English paid a visit to the south to call on the new head of Environment Southland yesterday.
We've a new head? Chief Executive Officer? Is Conor English head of Federated Farmers? He's CEO...
The farmers' lobby group has been critical of the regional council throughout the year, especially over water quailty, councillor numbers and consents for dairy farms.
Lobby group, eh! If you were a member of that lobby group and also a Councillor, who would you side with during a debate over mutual issues?
He met with Rob Phillips, who was appointed in May, and started work on Monday.
Mr English said he discussed infrastructure, animal welfare and biosecurity.
Odd. Why didn't he discuss water quality, councillor numbers and consents for dairy farms - the issues that the federation deemed so important earlier?
Then, there was this:
When asked by the Times if the regional council's dairy conversion consent policy might set a precedent nationwide he said regional councils were going through "a bit of a phase of trying to sort out the best way to make sure they got the best environmental outcome" and he was not sure if Environment Southland was approaching it right.
A simple yes, said to express good faith from the federation, would have been sufficient, Mr English.
Different councils were looking at different models.
Some looked at strong regulations, while others were looking at more collaborative arrangements.
Mr English said it was critical that regional councils and farmers got along and worked through things on a rational, practical basis.
"We need to work together in order to get measures that actually make a difference and make sense, rather than blunt instruments that are not going to make the difference," Mr English said.
Different councils were looking at different models.
Some looked at strong regulations, while others were looking at more collaborative arrangements.
Mr English said it was critical that regional councils and farmers got along and worked through things on a rational, practical basis.
"We need to work together in order to get measures that actually make a difference and make sense, rather than blunt instruments that are not going to make the difference," Mr English said.
Blunt instruments that are not going to make a difference? I don't swallow that and I hope our new CEO doesn't either. Mr English has made some very "Don Nicholson-y" signals during his visit to the Council. I wonder if Bruce Wills, with whom I talked during the Auckland conference, would have said the same things? I doubt it very much.
"I think it's good there is someone like Rob coming into Environment Southland and I think farmers do want to work constructively with the regional council," he said.
Well that's encouraging stuff from Mr English but I wonder what's given him such hope for the relationship between Environment Southland and the Federated Farmers? Is it Mr Phillips' appointment to the CEO role? It's all very interesting to watch unfold.
4 comments:
We've a new head? Chief Executive Officer? Is Conor English head of Federated Farmers? He's CEO...
Crickey, are you sensitive about terminolgy? Should we bow to Councillors instead?
Lobby group, eh! If you were a member of that lobby group and also a Councillor, who would you side with during a debate over mutual issues?
Cough-trite. Why do you keep suggesting conflicts of interest when you have recognised all councillors limitations?
Odd. Why didn't he discuss water quality, councillor numbers and consents for dairy farms - the issues that the federation deemed so important earlier?
perhaps you should deliver him an agenda next time he comes?
A simple yes, said to express good faith from the federation, would have been sufficient, Mr English.
Perhaps you should deliver him his own speach next time he comes?
Blunt instruments that are not going to make a difference? I don't swallow that and I hope our new CEO doesn't either. Mr English has made some very "Don Nicholson-y" signals during his visit to the Council. I wonder if Bruce Wills, with whom I talked during the Auckland conference, would have said the same things? I doubt it very much.
Sure - When cave man existed clubs made a difference. Surely we have moved past clubs. And by the way are you admitting ES use blunt intruments?
Nice to see you are making friends with Bruce. Does he know you have questioned his intelligence in a blog?
Well that's encouraging stuff from Mr English but I wonder what's given him such hope for the relationship between Environment Southland and the Federated Farmers? Is it Mr Phillips' appointment to the CEO role? It's all very interesting to watch unfold.
In my opinion it is nice to see communication happening. Shame you appear to be discrediting that? Personally I hope Mr Phillips is not a battler more of a collaborator. In my opinion that is what ES needs. Nice to see Feds encouraging the collaboration.
Collaboration eh, Anonymous - it's a beautiful thing. It's very hip right now, following Guy Salmon's report some years ago, on its use in Norway or somewhere similarly Nordic. The trouble is, as I see it, that their model required the collection and collaboration of experts who eventually reported their findings to the Government, which then adopted the proposals in their entirety, without corrupting/rejecting them in any way. Here in NZ, we seem to be doing the first part quite well, as with the LAWF, but leaving the Government free to reject whatever they choose, as they did with Jan Wright's lignite findings. That's the flaw in the model right there.
What do you reckon, Anonymous?
Are we following the full, tested model, or just picking a choosing what suits one side or the other?
Collaboration in the real sense involves more than just two parties and should involve a defined process, which these unofficial 'collaborations' seem to lack entirely. I'd like to ask you, Anonymous, what you believe 'collaboration' means and involves - are there 'rules of engagement' or is it just a feelgood thing for you?
Robert @ 3.10pm
I don't know Guy Salmon's report. Would not care to comment.
I strongly believe in collaboration and you are right there are some weaknesses in collaboration. Classic examples include local government ignoring protests and overwhelming submissions to adopt policy.
But what are the alternatives? A government that ignores public views to promote and legislate their agenda. That is not right in my view. Collaboration is the least evil and at the very minimum it helps to balance policy and legislation even if we dont all agree with that balance.
Should we set strict boundaries? I think some basic understandings help to ensure decisions are still made. But too much bureaucracy discourages people from the table. Your typical kiwi can sit around a table and have a good discussion. The odd one likes throwing stones before the table is set. I wont point out examples of this. I think they are very very apparent.
What is apparent, Anonymous, is that you don't understand what collaboration is, in the form that it is being applied to governments national and local. Don't worry though, there are people higher up the chain also calling for collaboration and also unaware of what it is, and when pressed to explain and define collaboration, can't. I suggest, as politely as I can, that you find out, then rejoin the debate. You are to be commended though, for at least considering the issue.
Post a Comment