Principle and pragmatism

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.

In both cases, democratically elected members have been ousted so that problems could be fixed.

In both cases there were, we are told, no other options. In both cases, a return to democracy is promised and in both cases there has been, at least initially, substantial support for the strong action.

That is perhaps as far as the correlation should be taken. Scepticism about Mr Bainimarama's commitment to return to elections is proving well-founded, while the promise of a return to proper elections in New Zealand is expected.

Nevertheless, the arrangement of power the Government is creating is worrying.

Democracy is, by its very nature, messy and often unsatisfactory; a reality so often proved by central government itself.

It does not always produce what many might consider the best answers.

Hopefully, it muddles along, sort of getting there in the end.

To abolish or chip away at democratic institutions and their fellow travellers - like awkward and messy free speech, civil liberties or the disinterested rule of law - often has short-term attractions that must be resisted.

That must be the underlying principle, the default position that guides Government action and law making.

And that is is the principle that should make all wary of the ECan takeover.

Nonetheless, principle and pragmatism sometimes clash in challenging ways.

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.

What was needed was new water management, particularly because the region has about 70% of New Zealand's freshwater resources, much of the country irrigation and half the hydro generation.

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.

It could, though, back off for now recommendations that a specialist Canterbury water authority be established.

In comes formidable trouble shooter, mandarin par excellence, Dame Margaret Bazley to chair the new commission.

The Government was smart in appointing someone with her safe and fair reputation.

And to make sure the current circuits can be properly broken, the commissioners will have powers beyond those of regional councils.

To speed up water management, commissioners will have special powers, in effect avoiding the usual Resource Management Act process by doing away with appeals to the Environment Court, leaving only appeals to the High Court on points of law.

Is that an admission, however, that the current rules and frameworks are too complex and difficult? Can ECan be blamed, therefore, for all the delays and difficulties? And if the model clears the logs from jammed up rivers, why not apply it elsewhere? Benevolent dictatorships do have their advantages.

The Government has previously intervened in elected statutory bodies, including school boards of trustees and the Hawkes Bay District Health Board.

It responded to the Rodney District Council's call for help to appoint a commissioner in 2000.