Breach of democracy

OPINION: The Labour Party's justice spokeswoman and Christchurch East MP, LIANNE DALZIEL, says the principle "no taxation without representation" has meaning, but has been ignored by the Government over ECan.

Put aside for the moment, if you can, concerns about Canterbury's water. Put aside any personal experience you have had with ECan, and definitely put aside everything you have read about ECan since the last election, because when I say the last election, I mean the last election.

Stripped of all these issues, what happened in Parliament last week was central government taking away our right to vote for regional government - we will still pay the regional rates, but our representation has gone.

Instead, unelected commissioners appointed by Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will decide how much to tax you and how to spend it.

That's why much of last week's debate in Parliament was centred on the principle "no taxation without representation".

There are some truly alarming aspects to what has occurred.

Opposition MPs were given totally inadequate notice of the legislation.

We were invited to a meeting at 11.30am on Tuesday, March 30. The Environment Minister, Nick Smith, who arrived at 11.45am, informed us that the bill to sack the ECan council would be introduced that afternoon and passed through all stages under urgency without any public submissions being called or heard. The public announcement was made at noon.

The process around the Government's decision was appalling.

The regulatory impact statement, which was tabled in the House that afternoon, showed that the Government had not properly considered alternatives, and had not engaged in appropriate consultation.

Instead they had relied very heavily on the Creech Report, whose authors had spoken to only about 20 stakeholder and interest groups, the local mayors and some of their unelected officials. The Creech Report lacked the rigour required to support such a decision.

It isn't a secret that Wyatt Creech has dairying interests, and conflict-of-interest rules should have ruled him out of consideration to lead the review.

The report was riddled with anecdote, and based its case on out-of-date performance data, making no attempt to update these.

The report was internally inconsistent, as its factual assessment of compliance with its Resource Management Act and Local Government Act obligations said that ECan was doing well.

The only area where ECan had not performed as well as it might was water, but that was well in hand with the Canterbury Water Management Plan under way and the water chapters of the Natural Resources Regional Plan due for completion this August.

This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the Government decided to intervene in this heavy-handed way for reasons other than resolving the water issues in Canterbury and this should send a chill down the spine of anyone who values democracy.

Perhaps the water conservation orders (which have been taken out of the national framework in Canterbury) were the real target - and ECan has been the convenient smokescreen?

For those who don't know, an entire schedule to the Act overturns the Environment Court's jurisdiction in the application for a water conservation order (WCO) on the Hurunui - and the Act says that existing WCOs can be varied through a regional process while the commissioners are in place, even though WCOs protect a national resource.

The role of the region's mayors in this should not be forgotten either.

No one denied in Parliament that the letter the 10 mayors signed was indirectly requested by the ministers in order to provide a catalyst for the review.

So why would the mayors want to roll the environmental regulator which requires them to comply with their consents and not breach discharge rules from time to time? Don't tell me they are not self-interested.

And when did Christchurch City decide it should be a unitary authority with all the powers of the regional council as well as its existing powers?

According to the Creech Report, "Christchurch City's desire to become a unitary authority and 'master of its own (expanded) destiny' continues to detract from the relationship [with ECan]".

When did the council resolve this to be their official position?

I am totally opposed to a unitary authority - for one we would still be discharging our treated sewage into the Estuary if the city could have had its own way.

Recently The Press editorialised that "future historians will rightly regard the construction of Christchurch's ocean outfall pipeline as one of the most significant events in the development of the city".

This would not be the case without ECan refusing to grant the 30-year discharge renewal the city requested. Throughout the debate in Parliament National MPs kept asking about the Labour government's intervention in the Rodney District Council in 1999-2000.

Nothing could be more different - in 1999 we inherited a review that had been put in place by the previous National government at the request of the Rodney council.

The reviewers in that case called for public submissions (80 were received) and they held a week-long hearing.

When the report came out, several councillors resigned, leaving three wards unrepresented.

A commissioner was installed for the shortest period possible and fresh elections were held in March 2001 instead of having to wait until October, when local body elections are always held.

Compare this to ECan - everything behind closed doors, no consultation, poor process, no public input, last minute advice to opposition MPs, legislation passed under urgency, no select committee oversight, no public submissions and no election before 2013.

This is a serious breach of our collective rights to democratically elect our regional councillors.

Why was the minister so afraid to let Canterbury people vote for what they wanted in the election only six months away?

Unfortunately that's where I think the truth lies.

They didn't trust us to vote the right way.

And that's why I think this is the last election that National has planned for ECan.

They have never liked the fact that our environmental protection agencies have local democracy built into their framework and, sadly, I think this is the beginning of the end of regional democracy.

And while they work out the future of regional authorities and water conservation orders, Canterbury will pay the price of taxation without representation.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Comment on this opinion piece below.

- © Fairfax NZ News