“Carter’s Warning – Watch Out Democracy”

The Agriculture Minister’s recent comments to farmers that the removal of the rights of Canterbury region’s voters to select regional council representation was designed as a “signal” to the local Government sector is cause for alarm, says local democracy watchdog Council Watch.

The Press reports Agriculture Minister David Carter has sent ‘a signal to regional authorities to work more constructively with farmers’. There could scarcely be a more direct threat to the very function of environmental protection that regional authorities carry out. The Government can no longer try and perpetuate the myth that the sacking of ECan was necessary, just or rational. Here is the clearest indication yet that the Government are seeking to instruct regional authorities to accede to farmers’ demands for irrigation regardless of environmental impact.

How can we be so sure of this assertion? To begin with the Creech report upon which the Government based its decision was ‘shot through’ with inaccuracies, value judgements and a flawed central message; that ECan was failing. It had all the hallmarks of haste, poor drafting and a pre-determined conclusion in search of some justification. Any factual examination of the record shows that Ecan:
• was consistently improving its compliance with statutory timeframes for water related resource consents;
• was only occasionally tied in voting 7/7 on matters of environmental protection versus unfettered access to water and irrigation/dam construction, and;
• had an enviable record on other regional activities including transport.

Throughout the Creech report these facts are acknowledged and it makes frequent reference to the ‘enormous complexity’ of the issues, ‘the legitimate reasons for delay in decisions making’ and; how well ECan was operating in terms of the lengths to which its members, CEO and staffs worked to ensure an effective organisation. Such glowing findings simply do not fit with the conclusion. Evidently this was a politically motivated ‘beat up’ and Mr. Carter’s latest statements confirm this. The message must be clear, not just to regional authorities but to environmental groups and ordinarily caring citizens of NZ that:
• “working with farmers” in the Government’s definition means capitulating to them on all matters relating to water - irrigation, dam construction and resource consents
• this is important for the short term economic well being of NZ (not to mention our friends the farmers)
• if you don’t do this you will be stripped of your powers regardless even if those powers were granted by a democratic process (now denied Cantabrians for 4 years, 8 years, who knows??)
• we (Government) will do this by means of inter alia
o dubious reports (a la Creech)
o stifling debate with ‘urgency’ and,
o putting our people in charge to get the guaranteed outcome.

Let us consider what could have happened if due process had been followed. Just before Christmas 2009 (a good time for releasing sensitive information unheralded) a report from the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) found prima facie evidence that four ECan councillors had abused their position by voting on matters in which they had a pecuniary interest. Such was their arrogance that they did this despite being advised by their own Chairman and the Auditor Generals office that they had such a conflict! Crucially however, the Auditor General Lyn Provost chose not to prosecute.

Council Watch questioned this decision at the time as it seemed inconsistent with the truly damming nature of her findings. Although the amounts involved were small, around $13,000 in the largest case, the intent of the four councillors was very clear and furthermore continued long after their obvious failings had been pointed out to them. When Council Watch sought information on the AG’s rationale under the Local Government Information and Meetings Act provisions, the request was declined. The rationale provided by the law officers who advised Ms. Provost is a crucial piece of information that the public should have access to because it begs the question of just how badly a councillor may behave before any kind of sanction is applied.

Why is this important? The public has have heard much about the deadlock around the ECan table in relation to matters of environmental protection versus unfettered access to water and this could have been broken at a stroke by the AG prosecuting the ECan four, effectively removing them from the table and altering the balance of voting power.

For the Government however, simply breaking the deadlock was not enough, it had to be broken in such a manner that the right side won. It was and it did. Is this how we want our democracy to function in NZ? We should all be concerned, very concerned.

Further information is available on the Council Watch website www.councilwatch.org.nz.

ENDS

© Scoop Media