Editorial: Blow to ECan

OPINION: Water is such a sensitive issue in Canterbury that it is imperative that decisions with respect to this valuable resource are made by Environment Canterbury with scrupulous attention to the legality of the process.

As the report this week of the Auditor-General, Lyn Provost, makes clear, this was not the case with respect to four regional councillors when ECan debated and voted on water charges in June. It is a report which could prove to be the last nail in ECan's coffin.

Her report found that the four councillors – Pat Harrow, Angus McKay, Bronwen Murray and Mark Oldfield – held water consents and had a pecuniary interest in the charging proposal, which they voted against. Their conflict of interest should have precluded them from debating the issue and from voting on it.

Provost did not recommend that the councillors be prosecuted, partly because the four will be judged in the court of public opinion following her adverse finding.

The report, however, was not just a blow to the four councillors but to the credibility of ECan itself. Local Government Minister Rodney Hide already had the council in his sights, having ordered teams, including one headed by no-nonsense former deputy prime minister Wyatt Creech, to investigate its resource management functions and its governance.

It is significant that their draft report has been delayed until late next month and, no doubt, one reason for this was to take account of the auditor-general's inquiry into conflicts of interest, an issue directly relevant to ECan's governance.

Relevant also will be the spat over the issue between Sir Kerry Burke, the ousted ECan chairman, and his successor, Alec Neill. The latter attacked Burke for not telling the affected councillors about their right to seek a conflict of interest exemption from the auditor-general, a charge denied by Burke.

This dispute seems to be a red herring. Even if the four councillors had been acting on a legal opinion, one with which the auditor-general disagreed, like all elected representatives they should themselves have been aware of all legislative provisions about their role, including the exemption option. And, as water consent holders, they should have taken the safe course of applying for an exemption.

Burke also claimed in an angry statement that the conflict of interest row underlay the coup which saw Neill take his job.

Relations around the council table are clearly as bitter as ever. And, under ECan's current structure, the potential for conflicts of interest over water, especially for councillors from largely rural constituencies, will continue.

Under these circumstances Hide might be tempted to consider whether Canterbury, especially Christchurch, needs two levels of local government, and investigate the possibility of a unitary authority.

The auditor-general's report, therefore, and the discordant row which followed it could be music to the ears of Hide if he is seeking an excuse to sack ECan and appoint a commissioner to run it, or even completely restructure the council.

This is a prospect which should cause considerable trepidation among ECan councillors as they contemplate their summer break.

- © Fairfax NZ News