AS FEDERATED Farmers warms up for its national conference and annual meeting in Ashburton this week, it’s timely to take a look at how the lobby group operates.
Each of the seven national board members has a long list of policy responsibilities to his/her name: in one case one board member has nine topics. Such is the complexity of every one of these topics that for an individual to keep abreast of so many areas, as well as running their own business, is a tall order. Myriad meetings must be attended and the ability to effectively represent members becomes stretched, to say the least, through no fault of the board member.
The fault lies with the structure. Why do board members have to cover so many areas? Surely there is a case for greater delegation to members with expertise in particular areas? The board member may remain the spokesperson on a particular issue, but there needs to be a greater willingness to defer to specialist colleagues or sub-committees.
Feds’ policy analysts can support decision making, crunching the numbers and picking over the pertinent regulations. But unless they have been in the role for decades, few will have the in-depth specialised knowledge many of Feds’ members will have amassed in one area or another. The board member cannot be expected to have that expertise in more than one or maybe two areas either – which leaves at least three topics, and in most cases more, where knowledge is lacking.
Unless other members are seconded to pick up those areas, there’s a risk policy staff don’t just inform policy, they drive it – drive it from Wellington from an office several times removed from grassroots members. Little wonder some farmers are questioning the lobby group’s representation of members’ interests.
The fact is the federation does achieve much behind the scenes, which many grassroots members may never be aware of: they farm on, unaware of the potential regulatory roadblocks the federation has removed, or prevented being set up in the first place.
But Feds could do better if it better used the specialist knowledge that exists among its members. The current structure is a barrier to some getting involved. To put your hand up on one issue risks getting lumbered with half a dozen more. That risk needs to be removed.