An article in The Press from a few days ago about ECan two years after the dysfunctional Councillors were sacked. First the past:

As the regional level authority, it had become paralysed by an internal conflict between largely green-minded metropolitan councillors and development- minded country councillors.

And it was a double failure because while none of the sensible big projects – the dam and canal networks to trap the annual snow melt – could get off the ground, ECan had also proved incapable of stopping farmers from drilling wells into the aquifers under their own land, or gaining consents to extract from local rivers.

There was still a water goldrush going on, but of the least sustainable kind.

And now:

Some say the earthquakes have naturally over-ridden all other public concerns. Or that the commissioners have cleverly stayed out of sight – people have forgotten they are even there.

And yet a surprising number have also remarked that the commissioners seem to be working out rather well. And furthermore, now the right people are in charge, the idea of a regional council is not looking so bad after all.

Sacking the Councillors may have saved ECan. Otherwise it was perhaps inevitable local authorities would go unitary.

The old ECan took an adversarial approach. Its role was framed negatively – the guardian of the natural landscape usually telling people what not to do.

“In these sorts of work environments, people are very conscious of the rules. You’ve got to operate within the frameworks,” says Bazley.

And making it worse was the political friction – the fact the council table was split 50-50 between the rural and urban factions.

For staff, it was like being the children caught in the middle of a messy divorce. Bazley says they had become even more risk averse because any action was liable to set off one or other side.

“I’ve seen many of these organisations where staff work to the rules to protect themselves, as opposed to where staff are confident they will be backed and so are prepared to stand up.”

She could sense this atmosphere immediately she arrived. “Staff scuttled by with their heads down.” So the biggest difference the commissioners could make was just to free officers to use their initiative, Bazley says.

Each of the commissioners was put in charge of a portfolio. For example, Caygill manages water, while Bedford handles air quality and Williams deals with transport issues. Bazley says this gave staff a clear boss. No-one was stepping on anyone else’s toes.

She says as a result her commission meetings are a breeze. “Usually there’s only one right decision and we quickly get agreement on it. We don’t even have uproars to report on in private.”

Is this just Bazley’s views?

Speaking from the staff point of view, Bazley’s claims of a change in culture are supported by Christina Robb, ECan’s programme manager for water and land. Caught on the hop at a public meeting on the water plan’s progress, Robb happily confirmed the difference.

She says staff used to spend much of their time in meetings with councillors. What mattered was what was being said inside the council chamber. There was a natural inward focus to the organisation.

But now those discussions take place out in the community with the commissioners at places like zone committee meetings. “I’m just out so much more. I’m not all day in some council workshop.”

And as Bazley says, the shift is from thinking regulation to thinking problem solving.

So ECan is actually serving voters and the community better, but having removed the politicians who had paralysed it. There is nothing wrong with politicians in charge, so long as they put the welfare of the body they sit on ahead of their own welfare. But it seems obvious that this was not the case at ECan.

Far from the commissioners taking away from the democracy of water decisions, Robb says their “benign dictatorship” seems in fact better aligned to a community- based consultation process.

The Government probably was not smart enough to have seen that in advance, Robb laughs, but the commissioners have ended up more directly accountable for ECan’s decisions.

“These commissioners take their need to be out in the community and to be doing what the community wants very, very seriously.”

This is not a reason to keep the Commissioners on beyond the 2013 elections, but it is a reminder that local government is the creation of Parliament, and Parliament has the ability to intervene if they fail.

However, Caygill denies any dark motives. It really is about allowing Cantabrians themselves to form the policies around appropriate agricultural development, he says.

Caygill says those who are going to be investing in the big irrigation projects – the energy companies, bankers and farmer collectives – just want certainty about the ground rules.

“I was at a public meeting last night and the irrigation representative said farmers need and welcome the idea of limits. I thought that was a really good statement to hear.”

Caygill says it is going to take decades for them to see the return on their investments, so they need a stable consensus as much as anyone.

A politically imposed solution, one against the wishes of the people, will fall apart pretty fast. But a water plan with a buy-in starting at the grassroots level will be very difficult to unmake.

And that consensus has been emerging, says Caygill.

Excellent.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council

From the House:

Amy Adams: What progress has been made on Environment Canterbury’s appalling record of resource consent processing, which saw it rated as the worst council in the country in the 2007-08 year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In that year Environment Canterbury processed only 29 percent of consents within the statutory time frames. The latest report shows that there has been a dramatic improvement. Within the last year 92 percent of resource consents have been processed on time. This improvement from 29 percent, when Labour was in Government, to 92 percent now is a real credit to the work of the commissioners and their staff. It is a relief for the thousands of homeowners, businesses, and farmers who have previously been held up by poor processes. With the rebuild of Canterbury it is particularly important that we have efficient resource consent processing, so that we can rebuild Canterbury.

Idiot/Savant blogs at No Right Turn:

Or, to put it another way, turning Canterbury into a dictatorship made the trains (or rather the RMA) run on time. A certain short Italian used the same “justification” for taking over Italy; it wasn’t acceptable then, and its not acceptable now. Government is not about efficiency; it is about control. And one thing is clear: the people of Canterbury now no longer control their regional council.

I disagree. The failures of Environment Canterbury were far more than the trains not running on time. A train operator is not required by law to have the trains run on time.

However Environment Canterbury were required by law to process consents within a statutory time-frame. They failed miserably. Not for one year or two years but for  a decade. Even after ten years they could not produce a water plan.

NZ is a nation of laws. The Government is bound by the law. So are Councils. If a Council year after year is so incompetent it can not meet statutory deadlines, then it is entirely appropriate that the Government sack it for incompetence. This has happened for various School Boards and even territorial authorities in the past.

I support local government being required to obey the law. And I support the sacking of local government bodies when they fail year after year after year in meeting their legal obligations, or even coming close.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council

The Press reports:

New Ashburton Mayor Angus McKay and Hurunui District councillor Ross Little may be laughing, but the other sacked Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors who sought new mandates have missed out.

In less than six months McKay has gone from dismissal at the hands of the Government to the top job in mid-Canterbury and ironically replaces one of the architects of the move against the ECan council, former mayor Bede O’Malley.

Further north, Little will now represent his local community in the Amberley ward on the district council.

There was no political resurrection, however, for other ECan councillors who lost their jobs when Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide stepped in earlier this year.

Sir Kerry Burke, Jane Demeter, Pat Harrow, Jo Kane, David Sutherland and Rik Tindall all stood for council, community board or district health board positions, with Tindall also having a shot at the Christchurch mayoralty.

It is interesting that Christchurch voters have rejected the people that helped made Ecan so incompetent (ranked 86/86).

Angus McKay was not one of those, and pleased to see him become Mayor Ashburton. Angus is a former National candidate standing against Jim Anderton in Wigram.

Tags: Angus McKay, Canterbury Regional Council, Local Body Politics

In all the debate about Ecan’s sacking, people seem to forget about why they were sacked. There were two primary reasons.

The first is that after 19 years, they were the only Council in the country to have failed to come up with a water allocation plan. They have had six sets of elections, yet no plan. Environmentalists should be outraged at this.

The second is they were the most incompetent Council in New Zealand at processing resource consents. This is not just the view of the review team – it was documented by the Ministry for the Environment in 2009.

Of the 84 territorial and regional councils, ECan was ranked 84/84. They only processed 29% of resource consents on time.

If that does not qualify for a sacking, what does? Would you leave in place an organisation that can’t even comply with the law 71% of the time? Would you take no action against the most incompetent Council in New Zealand?

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council

Constitutional law expert, Professor Philip Joseph slams the process around ECan:

A top New Zealand public law academic wants the Government to abolish legislation that sacked Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors.

Canterbury University law professor Philip Joseph says the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, which was passed under urgency last month, breaches several principles of law, is “constitutionally repugnant”, contains “elements of subterfuge” and is a “constitutional affront”.

The act should be repealed and the 14 sacked regional councillors reinstated, he said. …

Joseph told The Press the act was “simply unacceptable”.

“What I’m concerned about is the idea of proper process, and this was a departure,” he said.

“This didn’t go through any select committee consideration, no submissions and no consultation. Why should urgency be taken on a matter such as this?”

While I support the decision to sack the Council, I agree with the criticism around process, and the lack of select committee hearings. Labour sacked the Rodney District Council using the same process (urgency with no select committee) but the ECan situation is more complicated with the powers ECan has also changing.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council, Philip Joseph

The seven Ecan Commissioners have now been put into place. Before we review who they are, it is worth remembering why the ECan Council was sacked

1. The only Region in the country to have failed to produce a water allocation plan, despite 19 years to do so
2. An out of control staff, who all but refused to accept the authority of Independent Planning Commissioners
3. A totally divided and dysfunctional Council
4. Rock bottom relations with the ten local territorial authorities, whose democratically elected Mayors had been lobbying the Government for years to do something

So they were sacked, just as Labour once sacked the Rodney District Council and Auckland Area Health Board. It is what happens when your incompetence continues on unchecked.

The major decisions before ECan are to do with water allocation. This is because ECan had failed to devise a plan, despite 19 years to do so. So who are the seven Commissioners? Are they ex National politicians (which ironically the sacked ECan Chair was). They are:

1. Dame Margaret Bazley, arguably NZ’s most respected public servant and problem solver
2. David Caygill, who was Helen Clark’s first Deputy Leader, and respected by all sides in politics. A former Christchurch Councillor who knows the region well.
3. David Bedford, Chair of Enterprise North Canterbury
4. Donald Couch, Lincoln Uni Pro-Chancellor with a long history in resource management and local govt, plus Ngai Tahu links
5. Tom Lambie,Chancellor of Lincoln University. Very experienced in water management issues. Former President of Fed Farmers. An organic farmer that produces organic milk
6. Peter Skelton, Environment Court Judge for 20 years, Associate Professor of Resource Management Law at Lincoln University
7. Rex Williams, Chancellor, Canterbury University, founder of environmental lobby group Water Rights Trust

So all up we have:

• four Commissioners with expert knowledge of water and resource management issues
• Two local university chancellors and a pro-chancellor
• A former labour party politician
• An environmentalist
• A organic farmer
• A business rep
• A Ngai Tahu link
• Dame Margaret as Chair

I look forward to them achieving in a couple of years what the Council failed to do in 19. And I doubt anyone can say that group is slanted politically.

Some will not want them to succeed. Certain urban fundamentalist environmentalists don’t want there to be a water allocation plan. They don’t want anyone taking any water. They don’t want farming or irrigation – to them it is all just pollution.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council, David Bedford, David Caygill, Donald Couch, Margaret Bazley, Peter Skelton, Rex Williams, Tom Lambie

I blogged two days ago on how ECan management were even interfering with their own independent Hearing Commissioners. A 2007 final judgement makes these points:

Wayne Russell is a hydrogeologist from Auckland, Dr Greg Ryder is an aquatic ecologist from Dunedin. Philip Milne who chaired the hearing is a environmental law partner with Simpson Grierson in Wellington. We were appointed by Canterbury Regional Council (“the Council”) to hear and decide 69 applications by 59 applicants.

These were the three independent Commissioners. It is fair to say they are experts – which is why they were appointed. Their job is to decide on applications according to the law, and best science. The Greens claim to be pro-science, but are very selective in their use of it I note.

They note:

The hearing was somewhat unusual. In essence it largely became a two way debate between the Council officers and the applicants’ experts and counsel. Notwithstanding that there were no submissions in opposition to many of the applications and little evidence from submitters, the officers remained adamant, that with some very minor exceptions we should not grant any of the applications.

This says a lot. Often hearings are between applicants and objectors. Here, the Council management argued against, despite there being no objections from any person or group.

Some of the officers have at times adopted more of an advocacy role than a neutral advisory role. …

We appreciate that there is a need for precaution in relation to this resource, however we were left with the impression at times, that the case presented by officers was overly focussed on persuading us to decline consent. This was reflected in the officers’ strong opposition to us granting any but a few exceptional applications. There was also considerable resistance to the proposed adaptive management approach. We felt that the officers had rather more confidence in their view of how the resource operates that the science warrants.

That last sentence I suspects says a lot about why there were so many problems, and why they were seen as dysfunctional by all the territorial local authorities.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council

A reader has brought to my attention this 2007 minute by ECan Independent Commissioners:

Last week Dr Jenkins the CEO of ECan issued a media statement expressing disappointment with the interim decision we have made on behalf of ECan as its independent commissioners. He also indicated that “ECan” (we assume he meant ECan management) did not agree with many of our conclusions. He then went on to detail specific areas where he suggests we are wrong.

The statement reflects Dr Jenkin’s earlier comments made before the hearing commenced, where he suggested that ECan (which, for the present purposes is us) would be declining all of these applications.

We are not surprised by Dr Jenkins disappointment, or that he differs with our conclusions. However, It should go without saying, that it is inappropriate for the Council to publicly criticise or debate specific aspects of the decision we have made on its behalf, let alone before we have completed the hearing and issued a final decision.

This is a prime example of how ECan was dysfunctional. It is almost beyond belief that the CEO would be undermining decisions made by the Council’s own independent commissioners. Bad enough he tried to pre-empt their decision, but even worse to claim to speak on behalf of ECan, when in fact the Commissioners were the ones with the governance role on this issue.

They go on:

Whilst we presume that this was not the intention, the statement may be interpreted as an attempt by management to try and influence the outcome of either this and/or future processes. It also puts us in an invidious position, when in essence, our judgement and competence is being questioned by the organisation who we are acting for. Such comments bring the independent hearing process into disrepute.

I note Dr Jenkins is still the CEO. I am surprised that the Council did not officially sanction him for undermining the independent hearing commissioners.

The Press also reports on what the other local authorities said about ECan:

Canterbury council leaders attacked Environment Canterbury (ECan) as “zealot-driven”, “vindictive and spiteful” and “operationally, a rudderless ship” in a review of the regional council’s performance. …

Timaru District Mayor Janie Annear told reviewers that ECan had a lack of knowledge beyond Christchurch and a lack of rural understanding.

“Some [regional] councillors have said `rural New Zealand are the sewers of New Zealand’,” she said.

I suspect they were not the councillors from the rural areas.

Annear claimed “there is not one area they are doing well in” and that ECan chief executive Bryan Jenkins was “starting to derail” the Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) and the “goodwill” built up in its development. She called for a “change of chief executive”, but said problems transcended “one CEO – the problems are systemic”.

An interesting comment, when viewed in tandem with the above minute.

Hurunui District Council chief executive Andrew Dalziel called ECan “zealot-driven at times” and said: “We’ve got to the point of making sure ECan investigators are accompanied by our staff.”

It sounds like the entire culture was awful.

Waimakariri District Council chief executive Jim Palmer said ECan was “vindictive and spiteful”, and Kaikoura District Council chief executive Stuart Grant said: “What do we want? ECan gone by lunchtime. This is a chance to gut the organisation. If water is staffed by ECan, it is doomed.”

Selwyn District Mayor Kelvin Coe said the regional council was “operationally, a rudderless ship” and “arrogant, combative, litigious”.

These complaints are not new. They were made to Labour also when in Government, but Labour wouldn’t act on them.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council

The sacking of ECan is covered by The Press and the ODT. First The Press:

After years of simmering regional resentment of Environment Canterbury (ECan), the axe finally fell on its 14 councillors yesterday.

Despite a last ditch attempt by a majority of them to salvage their jobs through a face-saving compromise, they will be replaced by commissioners headed by public service trouble-shooter Dame Margaret Bazley.

Considering the drastic nature of this intervention, the Government acted relatively quickly following the damning report of the working party headed by former National deputy prime minister Wyatt Creech.

This speed was commendable, as it provides some certainty over ECan’s future. In turn, Environment Minister Nick Smith, often considered slightly erratic, deserves plaudits for the manner in which he consulted regional interests.

Ultimately the Government had little choice but to act decisively.

It speaks volumes that even the local newspaper is supporting the sacking. It is a pity Labour ad Greens are politicising it, when in the past more responsible Oppositions have supported similar actions, when a Council becomes dysfunctional.

And the ODT:

Comparisons between the actions of Fiji’s Frank Bainimarama “to solve Fiji’s” intractable problems and that of the present New Zealand Government to deal with the “institutional failure” of the Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) are inevitable. …

All the Canterbury district mayors, themselves democratically elected, had had enough of “dysfunctional” Ecan.

The regional council has had major problems since the mid-1990s at least, and it has failed time and time again to produce required water plans. Dissatisfaction is deep and widespread, and the Government’s review panel into ECan was unprecedented in its criticism.

Because matters were irrevocably and irreversibly broken down, temporary patch-ups would not work. …

Given the emphatic nature of the respected review team’s report, the Government would appear to have had little choice but to enact a selection of its central recommendations. …

Umm, no such comparisons are not inevitable, and I’ve not heard anyone but the ODT make them. In case they overlooked an essential aspect, one was a coup carried out at gunpoint, and the other is a democratically elected Government passing a law to put in place some Commissioners for one out of 14 Regional Councils, at the request of the democratically elected local territorial authorities who had lost confidence in it.

The NZ Herald sniffs around Andrew Williams:

There would be no point in Andrew Williams relinquishing the North Shore mayoralty over allegations that he urinated in public and drove home after drinking at a Takapuna restaurant.

With the introduction of the Super City imminent, a resignation would be a pointless distraction.

Nonetheless, the episode that prompted calls for him to step down, with several previous incidents, cast a considerable shadow over his plan, announced yesterday, to stand for an unspecified position on the Auckland Council.

Indeed, it suggests that one of the benefits of the Super City will be the demise of local-body mayors of his ilk.

Absolutely.

Mr Williams has sought to explain away such occurrences with talk, variously, of being on painkillers, of suffering from dehydration and of exhaustion from an overseas trip. This is unpersuasive.

A polite way of putting it.

And the Dominion Post reviews the coroner’s report into the OPC tragedy:

However, the tragedy is not a reason to deny other pupils adventure. As Mr Devonport says in his findings, taking risks and experiencing the outdoors is a part of growing up. That is particularly so in New Zealand with its mountains, rivers, forests and wide-open spaces. Children, teenagers and, for that matter, adults should be able to test themselves, whether it be by climbing trees, riding skateboards, scaling mountains or scrambling up stream beds wearing wetsuits, helmets and life vests. Life should not be lived in a glass bubble.

But providers of outdoor experiences have a duty to ensure all reasonable precautions are taken. The Outdoor Pursuits Centre failed abysmally to do that. Its staff did not pay enough attention to heavy rainfall in the gorge’s catchment area. …

The Mangatepopo Stream tragedy was a preventable tragedy. The lesson that should be taken from it is not that pupils should be denied adventure, but that those organising the adventure should take every possible step to reduce the danger to acceptable levels.

Tags: Andrew Williams, Canterbury Regional Council, Dominion Post, editorials, NZ Herald, ODT, The Press

Brendon Burns blogs:

Today’s announcement violates that fundamental principle upheld by the Right that there should be no taxation (rates) without representation. It axes a democratically-elected body without any public input for the first time at least in recent history. It forces through this bill under urgency from later this afo with no chance for Cantabrians or anyone else to comment.

And No Right Turn exhales about me:

So you’d think that when the present government announced plans to sack an elected council and strip 560,000 people of their vote in regional council elections for four years, as a “defender of democracy”, he’d be similarly outraged about it, right?

But Burns is wrong. This is not unprecedented in recent history. From the Q&A:

Rodney District Council in May 2000
Local Government Minister Sandra Lee appointed a Commissioner, Grant Kirby, to replace the elected Council following a Ministerial review. The Government introduced and passed the Local Government (Rodney District Council) Amendment Bill which suspended elections of Councillors and
clarified the role of commissions, through all stages under urgency on 2 May 2000, with the support of the National Party and all parties in Parliament. This intervention was at the Council’s request.

So it happened under the last Government, and to a territorial local authority which has far bigger impact on people’s lives than a regional council. Also done under urgency, and also done at the request of local Councils – but in this case the ten or so territorial authorities.

What is the big difference?

National in Opposition supported Labour, because they put doing the right thing ahead of petty politics. If a Council has not managed a water allocation plan after 18 years, then it is a pretty sure sign than things are wrong and need fixing. Just waving a stick and saying “try to do better” has not worked.

Tags: Brendon Burns, Canterbury Regional Council, Local Body Politics, No Right Turn

The Press reports:

Environment Canterbury councillors have been given their marching orders by the Government and will be replaced by up to seven commissioners, possibly as soon as the start of May.

Government troubleshooter Dame Margaret Bazley has been appointed chairwoman of the commisioners, and the search is on for the remaining commission members.

ECan staff are being briefed on the sacking of the 14 elected councillors now, at the same time as Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide officially released their announcement.

For those who think this is all partisan politics, I would point out the ECan Chair who was just sacked is a former National MP.

A four person (not one person) review team concluded:

The Review Group acknowledges the significance of water and the complexities it brings to ECan in its management role.  However, the Group was struck by the ‘gap’ between ‘what needs to be done’ to appropriately manage water and ‘ECan’s capability to do so’.  The Review Group membership included some of New Zealand’s most experienced assessors of organisational capability.  In their experience they had not previously seen a gap between capability and requirement matching this particular situation.  In their view, the extent of the gap between the capability of ECan and what is required for it to adequately manage freshwater issues is enormous and unprecedented.

ECan was not just performing  bit below par. The capability gap was foudn to be “enormous and unprecedented”.

And this is not as simple as Wellington interfering. It is the elected local authority Mayors who called on the Government to intervene – something they had been calling for, for some years.

From time to time the Government has to appoint Commissioners, because a body is so dysfunctional. This happens to quite a few schools, has happened to a DHB, and in this case is happening to a Regional Council.

The choice of Dame Margaret is a shrewd one. She is 110% non-partisan, and has a excellent track record of sorting out dysfunctional systems.

The Government has said elections for ECan will be held by 2013 at the latest. This is the normal three year date. Obviously no elections later this year, but possibly in 2011 or 2012 if the problems get sorted out quickly.

The big challenge is to get a water plan in place – this is around 18 years overdue! Then water allocations will not be ad hoc.

The Q+A put out is very good. Especially the groups that called for change, which includes LGNZ, Ngai Tahu, Irrigation NZ, EDS, and the Mayors of Chch, Ashburton, Waitaki, Timaru, Mackenzie and Waimate.

My only criticism is putting the law change through under urgency. I see no reason it could not have a few weeks of submissions. However on the other hand, locals have had the chance to have input into both the review team, and to respond to the recommendations.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council, Margaret Bazley

The Press reports:

A key moment in Nazi Germany history is the inspiration for the “hatchet job” on Environment Canterbury (ECan), says regional councillor Rik Tindall. …

In a letter to the editors of The Press and the Timaru Herald, he says there is no “dysfunctionality” at ECan.

I can’t believe he said that with a straight face.

“The report attempts to inflagrate a Canterbury version of the 1933 Reichstag fire incident, to justify curtailment of democracy. New Zealanders should be very, very concerned as to the direction their country is taking,” he said.

“The unconscionably severe attack upon local democracy is simply a smokescreen to cover for … an asset and power grab by the most threatening of New Zealand forces.”

You expect comparing the Government to the Nazis from deranged anonymous trolls, not from elected Councillors. Anyone that hysterical should never have been elected in the first place, so I did a google on Mr Rik Tindall.

Turns out he is a senior Green Party activist:

A dedicated multiculturalist, I work to bring together the Greens and the Maori Party for leading New Zealand to the complete and spiritual sustainability we all seek, with social justice and economic wellbeing in ecological harmony.

Someone want to tell me what spiritual sustainability is? Is there some finite number of souls that we may use up?

Rik spent time in left and peace movements in the UK, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In New Zealand he has been involved with Greenpeace; the Gulf Crisis Peace Committee of Otautahi/Christchurch; Health Service & Benefit Cut protest groups and an Education Action Group fighting fees in the early 1990’s; Paakaitore / Moutoa Gardens occupant in 1995; the Christchurch Polytechnic Students Association Executive and a fee protest bus tour to Parliament.

I love it that he includes travelling on a bus, in his CV.

Also remember how Rik claimed Ecan is not at all dysfunctional, well read this story:

Kane complained in August about “threatening” emails sent by Tindall.

Tindall’s email attack on his colleagues followed his unsuccessful bid to be elected as ECan’s representative on a Christchurch City Council climate change and sustainability working party.

Tindall then made a complaint about Kane, accusing her of leaking emails to The Press.

Details of his hysterical e-mails are here.

Emails forwarded to The Press show that as a result of not being elected to the working group, Tindall wrote to his colleagues saying he would “absolve myself of all and any responsibility for any loss of life in Canterbury that should happen to occur through deficiencies in civil defence and emergency management (CDEM) preparedness”.

So get this. He did not get elected to a CCC working party on cimate change, and his response is to declare this will somehow lead to people dying through lack of civil defence preparedness and he “absolves” himself of responsibility for the loss of life.

I can now understand why he made the Nazi comparisons – he is obviously prone to bouts of hysteria.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council, Greens, Rik Tindall

The Herald says RNZ savings are not worth it:

Radio NZ’s budget last year was just $38.2 million, of which $34.2 million was public money. That points to the swingeing nature of the Government’s programme. While it is reasonable that all state-funded bodies should tighten their belts, it seems excessive to be waving a big stick at organisations where the potential savings are trifling.

The same penchant was, however, evident in last year’s Budget. Most controversially, cuts were made to adult night school programmes.

Again, the savings seemed hardly worth the trouble. Community education takes just 0.6 per cent of the tertiary education allocation, and the canned programmes provided value for money, if only because they gave hands-on instruction at schools that would, otherwise, not have been in use.

The Herald may be right that politically it might not be smart to take a lot of political heat, for relatively small fiscal savings. However I think it is more complex than that. If the Govt goes soft on one or two state agencies, then it is harder to keep fiscal discipline with the rest of them. State sector CEOs will find ways to live within means if they think everyone is doing so. But if you start giving into media campaigns for more funding, it incentivises other agencies to do the same. And then you end up having to borrow even more than $240 million a week.

The Press talks protecting police:

In response to the weekend violence the Government is considering introducing extra penalties for offenders who assault police officers, as is the case in Western Australia. Such a move might not deter drugged or drunken offenders from attacking officers, however.

Yet, it is still worth considering, as it would reinforce the special position the police have in our society to uphold the rule of law. It would also acknowledge the real, every-day risks faced by officers as they perform their duties.

If the Government did move to strengthen penalties it would have to be determined whether the new law would apply to off-duty officers who intervened in an incident. But because the public expects off-duty officers to respond to crimes they come across, and they would not be wearing anti-stab vests, they too should have the protection of such a law.

I favour increased penalties for assaults on Police. The Police get assaulted, basically on our behalf. They deal with the criminals and risk their lives often doing so.

The Dom Post flicks at Wellington parking wardens:

Of all the low-down, mean, sneaky tricks … While football fans were cheering the Wellington Phoenix to a nail-biting victory at Westpac Stadium on Sunday evening, parking wardens were ticketing the vehicles of 61 fans who had exceeded the maximum parking time outside the ground – because the match went into extra time, then a penalty shootout.

To its credit, Wellington City Council has waived the tickets, which threatened to turn the Phoenix’s triumph into a public relations disaster. But coming on top of other recent instances of over-zealous ticketing, the incident suggests something is amiss with parking operations. Proposals to install Big Brother-style parking surveillance cameras in Courtenay Place add weight to the theory.

The purpose of parking restrictions should be to ensure that as many people as possible can park in city and suburban streets, do their business and be on their way. It should not be to fatten the coffers of Tenix, the private company which manages Wellington parking, Parkwise, the Armourguard subsidiary to which Tenix contracts ticketing, or the council itself.

Hear hear. The incentives are all about revenue maximization, not giving parkers a fair go.

And the ODT looks at water woes in Canterbury:

Seldom has a local authority received such a slating as that just given to Canterbury’s regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), by a Government review panel.

The panel says the gap between what ECan does and what it should do is enormous and unprecedented. …

Yet some argue no change is needed.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council, Dom Post, editorials, NZ Herald, ODT, parking, Police, Radio NZ, The Press, water, Wellington City Council

The NZ Herald slams the latest stunt by the anti-whaling activists:

Peter Bethune knew precisely what he was doing, and the consequences, when he boarded the whaling vessel Shonan Maru 2 to make what fellow-protesters described as a citizen’s arrest of its captain. …

Mr Bethune was intent simply on grabbing publicity. He, and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, wanted to prompt a diplomatic incident, thereby putting further pressure on the Japanese to end whaling. …

The Dominion Post argues against a city wide liquor ban:

On one of Wellington’s rare balmy nights there is little to compare to a quiet picnic on the south coast, watching the sun go down and the kids paddle in the surf as you enjoy some cold roast chicken, a nice green salad , and a glass of Martinborough’s best sauvignon blanc.

Soon that pleasure may come with the dubious frisson of being a law-breaker, and the prospect of a visit from police to tell you you are breaching a Wellington City Council bylaw. Under the proposed liquor ban, the wine has to be tipped out on the sand, or the picnic packed up and moved to a non-public place. If you refuse, you will be arrested. If you wait till police go away and then carry on enjoying your picnic, you will be arrested should they return.

That is the future that could face Wellingtonians should the city council go ahead and pass its city-wide booze ban.

It’s a daft idea that should be shot down. Have outdoors liquor bans in areas where there is a problem.

The Press talks about the future of their regional council:

Environment Canterbury chairman Alec Neill managed to put on a brave face after the damning report into his institution’s performance and governance yesterday. The reality is that if the Government adopts the recommendations in the report, ECan as we know it today will be gone. …

The report will provide vindication for the region’s mayors, business figures and farmers, who have been queuing up to slate ECan for some years.

They would also agree with the comment of review leader Wyatt Creech that ECan had a “fortress” and “we know best” culture. …

I predict it will be gone.

The ODT talks about electoral issues:

It will be recalled that, in 2005, the Exclusive Brethren attempted to influence the outcome of the poll by mounting a covert and costly campaign against the Greens and Labour.

Labour had also been concerned about the extent to which campaign finance was both anonymous and uncapped, raising the spectre, it claimed, of “big money” interests tilting the odds against a fair contest: the even playing field argument.

In an attempt to close loopholes in the campaign finance rules, and to prevent parties “jumping the gun” and subverting the spending caps, it also created a controversial regulated campaign period of three months prior to polling day.

Ummn, no. That was the old regulated period. Labour extended the period to be all of election year.

Tags: alcohol, Canterbury Regional Council, Dominion Post, editorials, Electoral Act, MMP, NZ Herald, ODT, political finance, Sea Shepherd, The Press, Wellington City Council

Two independent reviews have just been released. The first is of the Far North District Council, and has found they have overcome most of their long-standing previous problems, and no intervention is needed.

But a very different fate is recommended for Environment Canterbury (the Canterbury Regional Council):

The Review Group has therefore come to the conclusion that an entirely new institutional approach is needed for the management of freshwater in the Region.  This will involve a fundamental reform of the structure of decision-making within the Region for all freshwater-related matters.  The Review Group recommends that the Government create a new Canterbury Regional Water Authority (CRWA) to assume all water related responsibilities in the Canterbury Region. This recommendation reflects the fact that issues associated with water management in Canterbury will be enduring and will therefore require the full and on-going attention of a specialist body.

So first they recommend they lose their most important function – water management.

But further:

The Review Group therefore recommends that the existing council be replaced by a temporary Commission as soon as practicable under special legislation.  This Commission will give ECan and the Region breathing space to allow the CWRA to be soundly established.

In other words, sack the Council.

The Government is going to consider the recommednations, before responding.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council

The NZ Herald looks at the TVNZ decision to bump John Key for Robin Brooke:

It is reassuring, in its way, that the Prime Minister could not commandeer the airwaves on state television on Tuesday to tell the nation about income tax cuts and a rise in GST. It speaks of TVNZ independence and editorial freedoms that should be valued, however questionable the actual judgment of those exercising them.

The Herald also looks at the drug law reform paper:

Mr Power’s problem with the Law Commission recommendations seems to stem from from the Prime Minister’s declared war on methamphetamine and drugs. Any relaxation would be perceived as contrary to that. It could also be argued, as John Key did yesterday, that softening the law on the possession of drugs for personal use would send the wrong message to youngsters. …

Given such political reality, there was a strong whiff of naivety in the commission’s suggestions. There was also, however, a solid strain of reason and rationality.

The commission, for example, is right to note that “while the harms and costs associated with alcohol are understated and misunderstood, those associated with illegal drugs are often generalised and overblown”. There is also much to say that drug policy should focus on dealing with problematic drug-users, rather than the many people whose drug use poses no serious threat to their own well-being or others.

I agree. that the focus should be on those drug use creates problems, rather than those who do not.

The Dominion Post talks about PHOs:

On paper, the last government’s decision to establish primary health organisations had a lot going for it. Bringing together doctors, nurses, midwives and other health professionals under one roof was a way to improve access to services and reduce overall health costs by reducing the need for hospital admissions.

In practice, as invariably happens when a government opens its cheque book, the results have been mixed.

A study by Capital and Coast District Health Board last year showed avoidable hospital admissions in the district have increased since 2003, but have fallen among people enrolled with PHOs. PHOs are also credited with increasing immunisation rates in some parts of the country and making visits to doctors more affordable for people in poor areas, although the latter is more likely to be a consequence of increased subsidies than the way the sector is organised.

However, some PHOs barely exist except on paper (their purpose is to channel money from district health boards to individual clinics) and their creation has contributed to a rise in administration costs.

Not exactly a stunning success.

The Press talks about Environment Canterbury:

For the second year in a row Environment Canterbury (ECan) is heading towards an overall rate increase well in excess of inflation.

Last year it approved a rise of 6 per cent, including a 10.6 per cent general rate rise, but if that decision prompted disquiet in the region, the questioning of ECan could well be even stronger this year. …

With the local body elections looming later this year, ECan ratepayers will be closely watching over coming months to see which councillors are prepared to identify areas where savings could be found, especially in the regional council’s bureaucracy.

We should have candidates sign pledges that they will not increase rates beyond inflation without voter approval.

The ODT looks at the merger of the Otago and Southland District Health Boards:

The way is cleared for the merger between the Southland and Otago District Health Boards with the Southland board’s 7 to 3 vote in favour.

Because Health Minister Tony Ryall is likely to back the proposal, the only remaining major issue is the speed of approval and whether the Southern Board will be in place early enough for this year’s local body elections in October. …

I suspect it will be.

Tags: Canterbury Regional Council, Dominion Post, drug, editorials, Health, NZ Herald, ODT, The Press, TVNZ

Th Auditor-General has just ruled that four members of the Canterbury regional Council illegally voted on a resolution that affected them financially (more than normal members of the public).

The report is very interesting for those who deal with conflicts of interests, and doesn’t reflect well on the Councillors. They are somewhat lucky that the AG decided not to prosecute on this occasion.

Tags: Auditor-General, Canterbury Regional Council, conflicts of interest