In a recent ODT article (8.6.24) we read that according to the Minister for Regional Development "the ORC has been captured by small group".
This headline was created by a politician who himself seems to have captured the resource management of a country as a member of a party with only 6% of voter support. Before anyone establishes an opinion, here are some insights into the governance of the Otago Regional Council.
The council, consisting of 12 members, has been democratically elected through local body elections, to ensure it performs its role in the management of our natural resources, including land, air and water, as well as infrastructure investment and maintenance required to manage the threat of flooding, drainage and river control activity.
The delivery of public transport in Queenstown and Dunedin is also a responsibility of the ORC. The ORC has a billion dollars of assets: a large proportion of this is the Port of Otago and its property portfolio. The ORC is funded through grants (predominantly for public transport), operational revenue, rates and dividends, all of which total $137 million in the 2024-25 year.
Every three years, the main responsibility of a new council is to complete a long-term plan that covers the next 10 years, meeting the detailed objectives mentioned above.
The so-called "captured" council has worked tirelessly as a group, and with staff, to progress the next 10-year annual plan (2024-34). This involved processing over 400 public submissions. At the upcoming June council meeting, the new 10-year annual plan will be approved.
The development of this plan could not be achieved by a council in conflict. It has been achieved though the acceptance of a diversity of views, solid discussion, and good process, and the recommendation to approve the plan was supported by 10 of the 12 councillors.
The 7/5 split mentioned by the minister concerns the vote regarding the notification of the land and water management plan. That plan is the tool that enables the council to meet its obligations to these resources. It has been developed over two council terms, widely consulted and has cost around $18m.
This has been a proper democratic process, which has probably taken too long: fast-tracking may have been useful.
Naturally, with a slowly developed plan and public consultation, there are going to be differing views. Within the council there is a group who represent farming communities and irrigation interests and a group who have an interest in the restoration and stronger protection of our natural environment. All the council members are genuine in what they stand for and, not surprisingly, there is no conflict in the objective to achieve good environmental outcomes.
The method of achieving the outcomes is where differences and the 7/5 split occurs. The argument is whether there is a need to regulate and create laws as opposed to promoting voluntary compliance.
The government has indicated that they will be creating a new National Environmental Standard for Freshwater Management (NESFM) and that there is no need to continue working on the LWMP until this and the new Resource Management Act is passed.
If the government were to establish a national policy statement that allows for water contamination, then the plan will be seriously undermined and there is no point notifying it in October. However, if the government, as they have indicated, review and re-balance some of the priorities of Te Mana O Te Wai (the basis for the current NESFM) in a new NESFM, then changes will not be too significant and can still be made after notification.
To add a bit more complexity, the ORC is currently legally required to notify the plan under the instruction of the previous minister for the environment, and this has not been rescinded. By not notifying the LWMP the ORC is at risk of a legal challenge.
The council has agreed 7/5 to notify the plan on October 31. Once notified, everyone will be able to read the proposed plan and make formal submissions. This will include public hearings, a hearings panel report, a further decision by the ORC, an appeals period and then the formal replacement of the old plan.
This is also a process that can facilitate changes created by new legislation. It could still be 18-24 months after notification in October that the old plan is replaced. Halting this process waiting on future new legislation will further delay the establishment of a significant tool the ORC needs to perform its role.
— Tim Mepham is an ORC councillor. These views are his own, not those of the council.
