Last month, in response to concerns about Environment Canterbury's handling of water allocation, the government proposed replacing them with an appointed board for three years - effectively abolishing democracy at the regional level in Canterbury. Last week, ECan met with government Ministers, and now they've come up with a compromise plan, which would see water allocation placed under the control of a government-appointed commissioner with an advisory board of locals. This preserves democracy in Canterbury - but at the cost of surrendering it over the most contentious issue: control of water. Where the government's plan was like abolishing Parliament and appointing Roger Douglas as dictator in response to the ACC "crisis", ECan's "solution" is to say "no, lets only give Douglas absolute power over the economy, social welfare, and employment law". Which isn't much of a compromise, really.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the balance between environmental and economic objectives at local government level is one for democracy to work out. What happens to Canterbury's water should be up to Cantabrians. If farmers want to get rich by destroying the environment, sucking the rivers dry, and filling them with shit, they need to convince their fellow citizens that that is acceptable. And if they can't, they just have to lump it. That's what democracy means. It is not the proper role of central government to intervene in these disputes to back one side or another (and in this case, it looks, and is, blatantly political - the National Party is mounting a coup in Canterbury for the benefit of its local supporters).
Disturbingly, two ECan councillors voted against the "compromise" because they want to see the government's plan implemented: Pat Harrow and Mark Oldfield. Both were named in the Auditor-General's report [PDF] in December as having conflicts of interest around water which meant they should not vote on such issues (both are farmers with permits to take groundwater; both clearly feel they'll get more if not restrained by democracy). If these people think they should not be representing the people of Canterbury on ECan - the clear implication of their vote - then they should resign their seats immediately. Otherwise, the people of Canterbury should do it for them and vote them out in November. Assuming, that is, they're still allowed to...
