Submission on the review of: The Environment
Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act) 2010
(ECan Act)
Associate
Professor Bronwyn Hayward
Head of
Department of political Science
University
of Canterbury, NZ
Private Bag,
Christchurch, NZ
I
am an Associate Professor of political science and Head of Department at the
University of Canterbury, NZ. Trained in political science and geography, I’ve
served as a specialist in public participation and democracy issues in
environmental and social change for 25 years at Lincoln and Canterbury
Universities and on international fellowships including Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change and Centre for Environmental strategy at Surrey University. I am
a co-investigator with the University of Oslo research project on youth in a
changing climate and a member of the 11 person expert steering committee for
the International Social Science Council guiding global research investment for
sustainable transformation. I’m also a trustee of the Foundation for Democracy
and Sustainability UK. From 2016 I lead one of nine partner teams collaborating
in a new international Centre for Understanding Sustainable Prosperity, CUSP,
funded through the UK. I was the University of Canterbury’s inaugural join
winner of the College of Arts Critic and Conscience of Society Research Award
in 2014.
In the following
submission I focus on three critical questions:
1) What is the problem and guiding
vision that justifies far reaching changes?
2) How will proposed arrangements ensure
citizens of Canterbury have fair representation
as determined by NZ Local Government Commission 2007?
3) What other changes could enhance
accountability for the future?
The three
key arguments of this submission are:
a) Lack of a visionary, legislative framework:
The framework for change isn't made clearly in this proposal-eg we are not given a clear vision or justification for moving to a mixed governance model.
b) Electoral Unfairness- the current
proposals would be unfair for the people of Christchurch City who account for
approximately two thirds of the total regional population and are a significant
rate base. It is unreasonable and unfair
if the city is relegated to just one electorate- this proposal would contradict
the determination of the Local Government Commission in April 2007 about what
constitutes fair electoral arrangements for the region
c) Opportunity
for innovation. A model
similar to a District Health Board of no more than 4 appointments of 11
Councillors has some merit but the current idea of 6 appointments out of 13
elected commissioners is unreasonable and is not justified. A mixed governance
model would need to explicitly say which voices are appointed, by whom and in
what proportion of elected to non-elected and why? All changes should be in
line with national policy.
1. What is the problem and what is the
vision?
1.1) I regret having to begin by expressing dismay over the impact of
these changes for citizens of Canterbury. The current government suspended
regional democracy in 2012, partly on the grounds this would enable a more
effective, and accountable, governance transition. Yet what has been offered
now is not thoughtful, nor more transparent, nor accountable. The brief discussion
document makes no reference to any legislation, and barely justifies the
changes it suggests. Quite frankly, it is unworthy of a government that seeks
to administer millions of dollars’ worth of New Zealand community assets and
natural resources.
1.2 ) There is no legislative framework nor vision in the document. For
example the careful, if pragmatic reasoning that informed previous National and
Labour led governments who created the governance regime of natural resource
management based on catchments is absent. Instead we are offered a list of headlines
with no idea of any legislative vision or framework that will guide these. Simply
offering an opening grab-bag of headlines for governance is unhelpful. “High
quality leadership, economic growth, strong environmental stewardship, strong
accountability to local communities, and value and efficiency for ratepayer
money” are a barely adequate response to last century’s problems, let alone
this one.
Take just one example, economic
growth; as used here it is meaningless. We all know economic growth matters but
it is a highly contested and problematic term. What is meant by it here? Growth
based on unsustainable use of material resources or a sustainable
prosperity? If the latter, how is it achieved?
1.3) This introduction fails to acknowledge the scale of problems that
children of Canterbury will face a new century. For example it fails to acknowledge how a
changing climate will dominate future decision making. It fails to provide principles
of justice and equality that will guide difficult choices, or long term
planning. Where are the references to future generations, sustainability,
democracy or natural hazard management? A meaningless list of opening terms
that has no reference a guiding legislative framework is unacceptable from a
government that has suspended voting for six years.
2. How fair are these changes for the
citizens of Canterbury?
2.1) The proposed changes are particularly unfair for residents of
Christchurch but they are also unfair for all Canterbury rate payers. Why
are the people of Canterbury to be singled out for loss of voting rights? The
fact that we live in an area that is important for dairying is not a reason to
deny all New Zealand citizens living here the right to vote, or to extend
special powers.
All ratepayers in other areas of
New Zealand have had the chance to vote for their regional governance but
Canterbury residents have had to pay rates without electoral accountability for
the past six years. (The Press calculated these rates total $NZD450million
dollars of taxation without representation).
2.2) Secondly there may be good grounds for considering a mixed model but
these grounds are not offered at present. There is a suggestion that
allowing a board to be fully elected puts ECAN’s work “at risk” or that
citizens will be “confused” because resource law changes soon.
Let’s be clear, in the past when
we had elections 6 of 14 councilors were re-elected. So are we
really arguing the Government may not like all the people who get re-elected?
To be harsh, those who resist the outcome of free and fair elections are not
democrats.
Nor can we claim that
transitional arrangements which extend ECAN’s special powers are needed because confusion might result if there is only a “short time” before wider Resource
management law reforms “are implemented”. It is not clear that the Government
has a mandate for wider RMA reforms and therefore it is unlikely these changes will
be implemented shortly. In the meantime it is not “confusing” for Canterbury
voters to abide by the same standards of environmental regulation and law that
protect the rights of the rest of New Zealand.
2.4) Any problems resulting from commissioner
turnover and loss of institutional memory is entirely of the Government’s own
making. If we had used the opportunity
in 2013 to transition to elections we could have voted for some of the existing
Commissioners. Moreover (with my
apologies to the Commissioners), if the original ECAN appointments had not been
drawn from candidates close to retirement, (almost all white and all male), we
would have had a larger pool of experienced
people to stand for election 2016.
2.5) In summary, I would hope the
Commissioners do stand for election in 2016. If they do not the Government
should be asked why it did not plan for this obvious problem from the outset. It should not be allowed to merely respond,
“there were not enough experienced candidates in 2010”. Appointing commissioners is always an
opportunity to build capacity, particularly given the Government’s argument
Canterbury lacked skills of governance. If that was true, (and this is refuted
by many) then the Government has only made the problem worse, by denying others
a chance to gain vital governance experience over the past six years.
3. Representation- a mixed governance model
It is disappointing no justification was
offered for shifting to a mixed model of governance and the current idea is
unfair to Christchurch residents in particular.
3.1) Christchurch City residents
account for approximately two thirds of the total regional population and a
significant rate base for ECAN it is therefore entirely unreasonable and unfair
if the city is relegated to just one electorate.
3.2) It is important to compare the new proposal
with the Local Government Commission determination of fair representative
arrangements in its special hearing in 2007.
3.3 Here is the new ECAN
electoral proposal:
3.4) If we compare the above with
the Local Government Commission determination 2007 below, there are stark
differences:
Comparing both models highlights
the extent to which the new proposal deviates from the Local Government
Commission 2007ruling about what constituted fair representation for Canterbury
in 2007 (the last time we had an election ruling). That determination was,
reached after extensive hearings and appeals.
The new plan effectively tries to side-line that decision. It tries to
reduce 4 urban Christchurch electorates (previously represented by 8
councillors) to one electorate with possibly just 2 representatives ! It is hard to find any other term for the
current proposal than gerrymandering. A fair basis for discussion should
begin with 2007 arrangements, not the proposal here.
3.6) We need to offer very careful arguments
about the boundaries for Ecan and build from what existed before, not try to
assert new boundaries that advantage rural communities and ignore the expanding
fuzzy boundaries of a large urban population.
3.7) Any discussion of ECAN
functions should not begin with the assumption that ECAN functions are most
relevant to rural communities. Regional functions are not more important to
rural communities than urban populations especially in a century in which most
people will live in cities. In reality spending on transport, air quality, and
water are issues of primary concern for all New Zealanders, the views of the
dairy industry or city residents should not be given precedence over other
citizens and future generations- Canterbury’s children, their grandchildren deserve
better planning.
4 In closing: More Positive Scope for a mixed
model democratic innovation
4.1) One strength of the current commission
arrangement however is that Ngāi Tahu has a formal partnership arrangement
which builds from otherwise highly contentious
CERA legislation. We could debate a case for enabling this to continue
within four statutory appointments. For example, one appointment may be made on
the recommendation of Ngāi Tahu and one on the recommendation of the Minister
for Māori Development , while the two remaining appointments may be made, on
the recommendation of the Children’s Commissioner (to represent future
generations), and the other on the recommendation of the Parliamentary
Commissioner for the Environment. Beyond this however is not clear constitutionally why any
particular interest group: either the dairy industry, urban residents, or
recreation users should have special representation on an elected board where
there are already zone committees and other mechanisms to ensure a wide range
of industry and special interest group views are robustly considered.
4.2) It is also not at all clear
why there should be 6 appointments to a board of 13 people, and why 13 commissioners, why not 14 or 11 (with 4
appointed in the same way as the District Health Board?) There may be many
reasons for another size of board but we need more care in this debate to
ensure we reflect the wide geographical diversity of Canterbury.
4.3 If there was any move to
represent a wider array of appointed special interests, then I suggest that we
think also consider enfranchising Canterbury residents aged 16 years and older.
If we give special voice to particular interests, young people should also be
entitled to vote in ECAN elections, especially given they will bear the burden
of the decisions we make today. Extending the franchise to 16 year olds may
offer some positive way to compensate for the loss of the franchise in the
past. The experience of the Scottish parliamentary referendum and Austria’s
elections where 16 year olds have already won the franchise shows they have a
thoughtful voice, and their inclusion helps enhance long term thinking. In
Canterbury a broader franchise would better reflect a spirit of
kaitakitanga-in wise guardianship for the future.
Conclusion
ECAN is not “all about water”,
and while we can be supportive of our rural communities, our decision making must be bigger than our dairy
industry. Dairy interests are currently vital to our economy but our regional
government is also charged with thinking and planning for the long term, for
our intergenerational , multicultural, and widely divergent socio economic
needs. Simply because our governance models have become trapped into one way of
seeing the world, is not a reason to restrict the future democratic opportunities
for Canterbury citizens, through highly partisan reforms.
“WEcan” do
a better job in reforming regional democracy, “Wecan” be better than this
No comments:
Post a Comment