Earlier this month, proposed changes to a regional plan to improve water quality were pulled from a council agenda because, with two apologies, a ‘‘majority’’ of councillors at the meeting had possible conflicts.
Council chairwoman Marian Hobbs described the possible ramifications of the situation as ‘‘huge’’ and said she believed regional councils across New Zealand were rife with conflicts of interest.
Yesterday, Minister for the Environment David Parker chose not to weigh in on the seriousness of the situation.
Further, he would not be drawn on whether conflicts of interest could be widespread among regional councils.
Subsequently, a spokesman referred questions to Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta.
‘‘The key issue in situations of potential conflicts of interest is to ensure good process is used to manage them effectively,’’ Mr Parker said in an emailed response to the Otago Daily Times.
Late last year, he said the council suffered from a historic underinvestment in science, planning and hydrological modelling and was not on track to develop a fit-for-purpose freshwater planning framework.
The so-called Omnibus plan change was included by Ms Hobbs in the council’s response to Mr Parker’s recommendation that it take all necessary steps to develop a passable freshwater management plan.
Due to be notified by March 31, it would target, among other things, sediment run-off from new subdivisions or developments, farm effluent management and good management practices to meet Government expectations.
Ms Mahuta said under the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 , councillors ‘‘must not vote or take part in a council discussion if they have a pecuniary interest in the discussion’’.
‘‘In addition where the conflict may not be of a pecuniary nature but significant in that it may compromise or influence unduly a decision-making responsibility then I would expect good governance principles to guide board members and the role of chair in particular would advocate for those disciplines to be observed.’’
In her emailed response, Ms Mahuta also chose not to weigh in on the gravity of the potential conflicts at the ORC, or regional councils generally
, and said the Auditor-general was responsible for investigating complaints under the Local Authorities Act.
After the February meeting where the Omnibus water plan was pulled, Ms Hobbs said among the requests she had made to the Government was whether the plan change could be delayed six weeks as per the council’s reply to Mr Parker’s recommendations.
The minister said yesterday he did not need to approve this extension, provided the minister’s overall recommendations were achieved.
Ms Hobbs said she appreciated Mr Parker’s view on the timeframes facing the council.
Now, she wanted a decision on the status of councillors’ potential conflicts from the Office of the Auditor-general before a March meeting when the council was due to make a decision on the notification of the its plan change that would limit interim consents replacing 100-year-old mining water rights to just seven years.
A spokesman for the Office of the Auditor-general confirmed the office had received applications under the Local Authorities Act on behalf of some councillors.