by Sue Kedgley
I can’t believe the people of Canterbury are going to allow a democratically elected Council—Environment Canterbury—to be thrown out and replaced by an unelected and unaccountable political appointee—most likely Jenny Shipley.
What is happening in Canterbury is eerily similar to what is happening in Auckland—layers of democracy are being quietly got rid of and replaced by unelected political appointees, who work behind closed doors and are not accountable to the public in any way.
One of the key aims of right wing governments is to shrink democracy and the state, using a time-worn set of tactics. First they manufacture some crisis to argue that democracy is inefficient and not working properly (the Royal Commission in the case of Auckland, the Creech review in the case of Canterbury) and then they use that review as an excuse to turf out democratically elected Councils—seven in the case of Auckland, and one in the case of Christchurch.
Most alarming of all, ordinary voters are hoodwinked into going along with all this, not seeing the hidden agenda at work here.
That’s why I have been calling Rodney Hide’s Super City plans Rogernomics phase 2. Having been thwarted in his plans to sell off national assets, Rodney Hide is focussing his attention on local government, and using the restructure to corporatise the Auckland City Council and ready it to sell off some of its $28 billion worth of assets.
Now he is turning his attention to Canterbury, and is about to implement a similar plan here, aided and abetted by local Mayors, some of whom are no doubt driven by personal agendas of wanting to amalgamate Councils in Christchurch so they can become the Lord Mayor of Christchurch.
In Auckland many local leaders such as Chair of the Auckland Regional Council Mike Lee, originally supported the Auckland Super City plan. But now that the true agenda of the Super City has become clear Mike Lee and other one-time supporters of the super-city have become outspoken opponents.
My bet is that is that the same thing will happen in Christchurch, and some of those who are currently supporting moves to oust Environment Canterbury and replace it with a Commissioner will wake up in a few months time and realise that a coup d’état has happened, which has left them powerless and without the ability to influence such significant issues as how Canterbury’s water is managed and allocated.
The fact is that Mr Creech was unable to find any statutory basis for dismissing elected Councillors or any reason to justify removing Councillors. So it will be interesting to see what excuse Rodney Hide and Dr Smith come up with to justify their dismissal.
Appointing Jenny Shipley would be such a blatant power grab. Replacing elected Councillors with a government appointee would undermine the whole principle of local democracy, and Cantabrians should be careful or they will find themselves without local representation on issues they care passionately about.
Published in Featured | Justice & Democracy by Sue Kedgley on Fri, March 19th, 2010
Tags: canterbury, democracy, ECan
More posts by Sue Kedgley | more about Sue Kedgley
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I don’t see the big problem with this action at the present time, I am more concerned with the ECan’s Open fireplace ban which has been undertaken without consideration as to housing valuation, costs of replacement or subsidies for those who cannot afford to change. Frankly, I think a unelected body might do better as they’ll reverse some of the foolish rulings while making the other actions better for the region while not being hindered by the need to cater for the rabble every time an election comes around
Like or Dislike:
12 
16 (-4)
Sue – ousting the council isn’t still on the cards, is it? Haven’t National won control over the regions water (the real prize), taking it off the hands of Ecan, and avoided the outcry that would have come, had they dismissed the council?
That’s what I understood.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
stephensmikm – you can’t be serious!
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
Self-righteous Authoritarian much?
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Are you letting your own hysterical political views prejudice your opinion on Mrs Shipley’s appointment (whether that happens or not??) how many landslide electorate victories did she win? Or should nt we use such issues as democratic victories as an indication of her popularity within the Canterbury area, or are you suggesting that such voters are simply morons? Why didnt the green candidate thrash her if she is satan personified?
Like or Dislike:
4 
8 (-4)
National will have it soon.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4 (+3)
Unfortunately, the only way of making irrigation pay on the massive areas proposed is dairying, and that is somewhat on the back foot at present.
Banks are very wary about funding further conversions – they have enough heavily indebted dairy farms on their books already.
And the NZ dairy image is not enhanced by the latest effluent reports. Even the farming blogs are having trouble glossing over these problems. The Minister, Carter, is clearly unhappy at supporting an industry which is letting him down regularly.
http://homepaddock.wordpress.com/
At least the Central Plains farmers have put up some serious cash for their project, though local councils are really the big backers. The Hurunui farmers have yet to front up with more than a few $k’s, while happy to accept government handouts from the Sustainable Farming Fund.
Local reaction to leftovers from the 90s National government, in the form of Creech and Shipley, effectively running crucial parts of Ecan, will be interesting to see.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
rjs131 – surely you jest?
Could anyone in their right mind not see the bitter irony of seeing Shipley take up such a position?
Christine Rankin’s appointment was galling enough, in a bile-in-the-back-of-the-throat kind of way, but Shipley, in control of Canterbury’s water resource?
That’s just sick!
Like or Dislike:
7 
6 (+1)
‘Not only is it an erosion of democracy, it is a huge water grab for farmers… I hope Cantabs like urine flavoured water…’
Why do you think automatically that farmers will benefit, just because it’s an appointed body it doesn’t mean that it’ll automatically be flooded with people hell bent on freedom of animal waste disposal.
And what’s wrong with Dame Jenny Shipley – we’ve had ex-prime ministers in far more powerful locations ie. Mike Moore, Geoffrey Palmer and Jacka Holyoake
and some of the rulings have been bad, the only good action at present is the free rubbish collection and that was a city council intiative I believe though I may be wrong
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
stephensmikm
You ask, “What’s wrong with Jenny Shipley” but failed to add,
“..the staunch right-winger and ex- National Party Leader, taking charge of the water resource that was until just recently controlled by a democratically elected council?”
That’s what’s wrong. Democracy has been perverted by the actions of the National Party in Canterbury and talk of installing such a figure as Jenny Shipley in place of democratically elected representatives of the community, is just sick.
Like or Dislike:
9 
7 (+2)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
@ greenfly-
you can say the same thing about Geoffrey Palmer having control over the Law Society which is one of the most influential bodies on law on NZ.
Dame Jenny Shipley is quite qualified for the job as Minister for Social Welfare and Health for the years prior to her premiership.
Just because someone has a political bias doesn’t mean that bias will be utilised as well, look at our judges for one, imagine if they decided cases based on personal judgement rather than the law
Like or Dislike:
8 
6 (+2)
@Stephen
Because National proudly proclaims that in their entire (almost 80 year) history they have had a farmer as either leader or deputy leader, they are the “farmers get what they want unless what they want conflicts with urban big business interests” party…
The quality of the average cantab’s drinking water is not their priority, not when there is money to make and farmers to placate…
Why are they doing this..? E-can has admitted they have a problem and has a new, extensive, consulted water strategy coming out in August… National is talking about doing this in July, so what can Shipley do in a month that the Council hasn’t already done..?
It is a democracy eroding asset grab, nothing more and nothing less…
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
Cause a stink.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
stephensmikm – I don’t believe you at all. No sane person would.
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
@ greenfly
Don’t attack the person, attack the policy
And back up your own belief please
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
Given fairly recent – within a year – announcements of shifting residences etc.. may I ask whether certain annointments have not already been made..?
As to the rjs131 commenter, on about winning electorate popularity, one might more pointedly ask how many General Elections did this former politician lose.? If the answer is one out of one contended then… quite the opposite view will result as a consequence of participation..
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
The quality of the average cantab’s drinking water is not their priority, not when there is money to make and farmers to placate…
This looks a very troubled statement to me, since the “average contab” would have little opportunity of making money from drinking water supply. Quite the opposite if the story of a friend of mine (below) is anything to go by. And placating farmers is more a matter for those folks servicing them than anyone else.
So.. Local drinking water quality. I always boil first. The somewhat flat taste thereafter can be lost in hot drinks or by cooling small quantities in the fridge. A friend of mine couldn’t be bothered with this and called the plumber in to instal a ‘de-ionizer’ (I think his term for it). This had filters as well and was strongly recommended by professionals, but after six months was found to make very little difference in taste and/or water quality. Result: he spent a pony+ for nought! Then the filters were a problem, costing renewal every six months or so. Hiding to nothing!
Given your assertion (actually JH I cannot tell whether yours or a clip of someone else) about priority I’d have to say our experiences do not bear it out. Nor is it likely to be the case in a number of Canterbury towns.
At issue then, quality. And quality appointments, preferably via direct democracy. People who can see what needs be done, and do it. For the local people who elect them to take action.
Not the whole case, for me by any means, but one means to a satisfactory end.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Who’s moved into town, tom?
stephenmikm – I’ve not attacked you. I don’t believe what you are saying. For a moment. And I’ve been quite specific about what it is that I find to be rotten about National’s actions in Canterbury.
You’ve not commented on the fairness or otherwise of the reallocation of the control of Canterbury’s water away from the elected representatives.
I wish you would and hope that your comments will be believable.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
“stephensmikm – I don’t believe you at all. No sane person would.”
That is an attack.
Though I won’t bother with that any more it’ll move too far away from the forum discussion and turn into one of those kiwiblog threads.
I don’t mind the removal of the elected officials temporarily – if it was for a permanent term then yes, I would be concerned deeply but the fact is this team have not been performing to the benefit of the community otherwise The Government would not have removed them and replaced them, It is done readily with other state institutions such as schools where trustee boards have failed to act in the interests of the Pupils and Community so why is it bad for the Government to remove a group that is not representing the whole community of Canterbury which does not just end at kaipoi. And of course the simple fact that ECan has failed to keep the trust of Canterbury by betraying the people in removing open fires and refusing to give subsidy for their replacement, an investigation by the Auditor General into the actions of several members and of course the simple fact that the Ministry of Environment suggested their sacking
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/investigation-performance-environment-canterbury/index.html
Like or Dislike:
8 
5 (+3)
Stephensmikm: I agree with Greenfly I think you should revise your research and not assume that the government is intervening for a good reason.
E-Can for the past few years have had a huge caseload for a rush of farmers wanting to convert to dairy.
If E-Can granted all the applicants resourse consents on the spot for as much water as they liked, without investigating the issues, then the supply of water, it’s quality and the surrounding environment would be a complete disaster!!!
And what is even worse there are four councillors on E-Can who simply don’t understand and will refuse to understand the above arguments, who clearly have a conflict of interest when voting those issues, ignoring Kerry Burrks ruling on having a conflict and still turning up to meetings.
Those councillors are making life hell for the other democratically elected councillors who are trying to their job responsibly.
Those four councillors should be taken to court for contempt and the illegal sacking of Kerry Burke.
The government should not interfearing, but not only is it interfearing it is taking sides and PERMANENTLY stripping away all democratic opposition that is seen as a threat.
I live in Lake Coleridge in the high country of Canterbury and if you take a walk to the Rakia river at the local fishing point, don’t be fooled by the blue clear looking water. There is a sign forbiding swimming due to didimo and ecoli bacteria. That was the kids favourate swimming Hole!!!!!!
This is the visable evidence of CORRUPTION!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
Idiot/Savant guard.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2010/03/winning-battle-losing-war.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
stephensmikm @ 4.27 PM,
the simple fact that ECan has failed to keep the trust of Canterbury by betraying the people in removing open fires
Have you got more on this betrayal thing please.. like who motioned and/or minuted it.. who supported.. because it sure was a big irritant. I’m wondering if the region-wide ban (w/o resource consent) was a power play inside that Council.. which might indicate the notion of dysfunctional..
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Greenfly,
Top right here not in the chat so far but pertinent this thread he is ‘on song’ at the penultimate paragraph in that page’s creech report story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Just in sifting through the vast array of pdf files they provide to scare off researcher :p , I have found this little tidbit which may explain the ban… make of it what you will :
AGENDA ITEM NO: 7 SUBJECT MATTER: CHRISTCHURCH AGENCY FOR
ENERGY
REPORT: Council DATE OF MEETING: 25 February 2010
FILE REFERENCES: PORTFOLIO: Air & Energy Portfolios
PROJECTS: 028500 Regional Energy Monitoring
039191 Clean Air Programme –
Communications – Christchurch
060200 Regional Energy Strategy
OUTPUT:
REPORT BY: Linda Kirk
Programme Manager: Air & Energy
ENDORSED BY: Jill Atkinson, Director Regional
Programmes
Ken Lawn, Director Operations
COUNCILLOR: Bronwen Murray
PURPOSE
To approve Environment Canterbury as a financial partner and member of the Trust Board
for the Christchurch Agency for Energy (CAfE) from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2015.
citation : http://ecan.govt.nz/publications/Council/council-agenda-250210.pdf
I’m been sifting the minutes but I can’t for the life of me find out who voted what but this I think is a little damning, See there is a reason for govt. intervention….
Read from the point I’ve copy/pasted down It refers to lobbying the govt for more energy, providing the energy services and a lot of money seems to be flowing there… but make of it what you will, I’m just passing it on
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
TomFarmer
Yes there has been a vicious power play at e-can the backers of the ‘gang of four’are large business interests who are getting very rapacious when not getting their own way.
If it wasn’t for councillors like Eugeny Sage who is qualified in RMA our rivers would absolutely intolerable.
And who was it who drafted the Resourse Management Act? And what party did he belong to?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Tom – Gazza’s got it right.
*amazing how many people think ‘penultimate’ means ‘last’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Read and weep (or rail!)
Any day now, a commissioner will be appointed to replace the regional council, Environment Canterbury, and probably move to set up a new special agency to manage the Canterbury water resource ahead of the mid-year reportback from Smith’s consensus-building Land and Water Forum.
There is some speculation that former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley is in the frame for the commissioner’s job. Her Ashburton roots make her an appropriate choice, were it not for the fact that she is also chair of Genesis Energy – about to inherit the Lake Tekapo hydro scheme under electricity reforms, and with an active interest in local dairy ventures.
Just down the road is her former Cabinet colleague Ruth Richardson, who is a director of Synlait, an ambitious example of Kiwi cleverness seeking to make money from milk in ways that the monolith Fonterra will always find hard to replicate. A little further down that road is former National Party leader, Don Brash, with an interest in another Canterbury irrigation scheme. And chairing ECan as it prepares its own execution is former National MP Alec Neill.
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/03/19/smellie-sniffs-the-breeze-its-only-natural/
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
Shipley seems to have ruled herself out of this now, though greenfly’s other comments stand. Don Brash is a director of Oceania, another dairy company getting under way in south Canterbury.
There is serious National Party political muscle behind Canterbury irrigation development, and the ChCh Press is giving it heaps of space.
You have to wonder if these high-handed takeover tactics for Ecan are necessary anyway. The Opuha dam project seems to have been successful overall, and it went through the rigorous ECan approval process.
If the Central Plains and Hurunui schemes are any good, why do they need to be railroaded through?
The main reason seems to be the current water shortages on the plains, due largely to over-allocation by Ecan. Ironic, eh?
Somehow the new schemes are to correct this by replenishing aquifers. This needs full scale engineering scrutiny, not just newspaper puff pieces.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
stephensmikm
Posted March 19, 2010 at 4:27 PM
The Councillors at ECan acted illegally in voting against charging fees on water consents, BECAUSE THEY HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. So National/Act (Nick Smith/Hide) started mentioning in Parliament, instead, the leadership of the then-current ECan Chair in Parliament and how bad it was no resource consents were being acted upon fast enough. (Resource consents no doubt that could have destroyed the iconic region, like the cubicle farming debacle).
The Chair who outed these people was then voted out BY THE VERY CRIMINALS WHO ACTED ILLEGALLY, and an ex-National minister voted in. (Same action profile as ACC and any other area National and Act wanted to destroy).
The ethical next step is to have a democratic election of new councillors to replace the ones who acted illegally and give the old Chair Sir Whatsisname his job back. How this government can allow a well-respected Chair to be shafted by people who acted illegally is just political chicanery and yet they intend to take away the rights of Ecans to democratically elect another Council. This is tantamount to a military coup.
However, what National/Act really want is control of the water. That is what Key has wanted all along, and his major brief – control of our major asset. (apart from the serfdom of the other major asset, New Zealanders).
(This has Ashcroft’s nasty little rightwing advisory industry all over it. Remember the visit to Key who said no money changed hands. What happened on that shadowy little visit was far worse for New Zealand. Expect Ashcroft to buy property in NZ if he hasn’t already, and to be running little companies under some agent in NZ for a money laundering exercise – financial hub I think they call it in moneytrader land…)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
yes but until then a commissioner is quite adequate, it won’t be a permanent fixture remember, the govt is just making sure that the bad eggs are all cut
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
What a shame that having been treated to the undemocratic system that is Auckland Shitty City/ Observed the obvious behaviour in Parliament of National and Act over ECan, ACC, Employments Contract Act, lies by the hollow men of 2005 and 2008 election campaigns of National Act, I really can’t believe what you say, and I do hope you aren’t sadly disappointed in your direction of loyalty.
Agenda item 16 quoting Agenda item 7/2a re $40,000 following your helpful minute detail was excluded from the public gaze to protect ‘Natural persons’; that wouldn’t have included Jenny Shipley, Ruth Richardson, Don Brash would it? I can understand why their selfish interests would be kept behind locked doors.
Whatever, it will be New Zealanders’ tax money and ECans’rates money going into backers back pockets. As Wally Lamb wrote “I know this much is true.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
PM Watcher – you have been paying attention!
Financial hub indeed.
That’s the nub.
Or the rub.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice work, you Cantabrians! You made Nicky Wagner look like a stressed loon.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The resourse Management Act was drafted by Simon Upton of the National Party.
I think that it was the late eighties? Anyway a long long time ago.
The intention of the act is to protect rivers, streams, foreshores and the environment in general. It is a very thorough and comprehensive piece of legislation and it has to be to cover all the loopholes that can be abused.
The industrial farmers and the polluters don’t like it at all and are in a lot of cases ignoring it. The Crafers are a good example of this.
There are other industrial farmers who want to infiltrate local bodies and have their representatives turn a blind eye.
The same people are lobbying to have the laws watered down.
What is really ironic is that the National Party are listening to these people and punishing the environmental councillors and executive officers who are enforcing the very law that they (National) Drafted.
So what does thar say about the National government?
PM Watcher and Stephen. Yes it was a coup.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)