Convention normally requires that former councillors or directors of companies remain neutral and preferably silent over the very matters that may have encouraged them to stand for office in the first place. That convention is misplaced at best. There is no moral authority in preserving this unwritten covenant of coerced indifference. The Italian philosopher Dante once observed that: ``The hottest place in hell is reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.''
New Zealand has reached something of a moral crisis over the administration of fresh water as interest groups seek to capture advantage from both local and central government over the re distribution of traditional use rights. As long as water continues to run downhill there will be mixed opinion over the management of how and where fresh water is best used. Recently thrown into that already difficult scenario of competing interests is another (new) dimension. That of Maori seeking and receiving special status over water use decision making.
The Government is to compulsorily acquire irrigators / farmer's miners' rights or deemed permits to fresh water in four years' time. It is the job of regional councils to manage that transition to permitted takes under the Resource Management Act. To avoid the law of the unintended consequence, judicious investment in time over the allocation, use and storage of fresh water is vital. The impact on rural people's lives is usually poorly understood within both central and local governance and management.
Otago Regional Council chairman Stephen Woodhead recently exhorted water right holders to buy into the ORC-managed process as soon as possible. Mr Woodhead needs to acquaint himself with reality. Work on the Lindis river minimum flow was started more than six years ago, by council staff who first recommended that a flow level of 450 litres per second be imposed. That recommendation changed to 900L/sec some months later without councillors' input but with the ``help'' of an independent economic report on the Lindis River and environs which was belatedly commissioned by the ORC.
The report was woefully inadequate as it was simply a Wellington-based, desktop analysis not relevant to the area. It is little wonder that the 900L decision is now under months of mediation. Next step: the Environment Court. The chair of the council meeting wanted the final vote and comment during the debate on the council's 900L decision to be held ``in committee''. So much for openness and transparency.
Open debate and decision making in public is a crucial component of representative democracy. Just as important for public confidence in councils' ``due process'' is avoidance of perceptions of a conflict of interest. The chair of the (Lindis) policy committee also sat as chair of the hearing panel on the Lindis River minimum flow and then also as chair of the full council which was to determine whether the hearing panel's recommendation should be accepted. Sitting in judgement on your own recommendations is (apparently) an acceptable practice by councils. It should never be allowed to happen.
The public's ``allocation'' by way of the minimum flow imposed is the vital decision by the ORC for farming/land use communities as well as recreational users. It is therefore a significant nonsense to expect the minimum flow on remaining rivers (Cardrona, Arrow, Manuherikia) to be swiftly resolved.
The ORC, under the current political leadership, undertook work to establish minimum flow levels on all the easier rivers (there were no miners' or water rights in South Otago) in the region to get early agreements. The ``tough nuts'' were left till last. The ORC needs to explain why that occurred, despite warnings from councillors who knew a bit about this stuff.
It actually gets worse, as landholders in the Manuherikia area are currently considering whether to invest huge sums of private money in raising the Falls dam to accommodate all water users including recreational users. Just what the minimum flow will be determined at and indeed the public's financial contribution (if any) is surely a crucial component in this decision, yet the ORC has barely started this work. It, too, will end up in the Environment Court, along with the Cardrona and the Arrow Rivers. The council's time frame for the transition to 2021 is unachievable with the likelihood of four Environment Court cases to fight. None of this should have happened.
Morality in decision making is recognising the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. That is why Dante's comments are still relevant, 750 years later.
Gerrard Eckhoff, of Central Otago, is a former Otago regional councillor.
