My faith in common sense and ultimate fairness has taken a jolt this past week, with news that the NZ government has taken extraordinary steps to get rid of pretty much all avenues for opposition to the plunder of water in Canterbury for the sake of economic growth.
I wrote about this topic a few weeks ago (incidentally, that post was read by the largest number of all my posts over the past year – thanks for the feedback from so many people) and you can read my arguments – which still stand – here.
At the time of writing that post, I had this perhaps naive belief that, with all the concern and anger that this stitched-up process (the Creech report) and the idea of getting rid of a democratic institution for political and economic reasons, the government might back down or at least leave the better parts of Ecan’s work and other water management strategy work in the region intact.
Oh dear, how really naive of me! The National/ACT government (or Hide, Smith and Key in particular) went even further than they’d intimated. Not only did we see the Canterbury Regional Council (the proper name for Ecan) written out of existence through a late-night bill passed under urgency (I understand), but we also saw a whole lot of other new laws that close off a whole raft of democratic activities and careful policy developments related to environmental protection.
It seem that there are now no avenues left for the people of Canterbury to have a formal say in how the region’s precious water resources will be allocated, and how its special landscape, soil and water can be protected from further environmental degradation.
Even if there is no immediate massive handout of water to an unsustainably growing dairy industry, the manner in which this has been done ensures that citizens will remain distrustful of this government for many years to come. This may prove to have been a very silly strategy in the long term, Mr Key.
My arguments remain the same – that democracy is too precious and hard won to be made subservient to economic efficiency and unchecked growth; that the growth of the dairy industry in Canterbury is unsustainable and a dairy industry crash – leading to more of the infrastructure and land being sold to overseas interests – is almost certain within the next 5-10 years; and that the Canterbury environment is seriously at risk in the face of this unchecked growth and pollution.
I’ve had little time for Hide, who is more intent on personal power and influence than most other politicians. I’ve had mixed feelings about Smith, who sometimes seems sincere in his efforts to improve environmental outcomes but then sometimes flies off aggressively on a tangent. And until now I’ve held Key in cautious respect – but since his handling and control of the Ecan/water issue, and his slippery advocacy for a mining boom, he’s slid down seriously in my estimation.
So what can be done now by those of us worried about this water takeover by the government and its big dairying friends? I suspect all that’s left is to support those people who are trying to oppose the trend through whatever official channels that this now limited democracy provides. And to keep making as much noise as I can whenever the appropriate opportunities arise.
Is there no constitutional law covering the dismissal of an elected body? Why isn’t the labour oppositional all over this? Sheeshkabab !
Hello, I was looking on the internet and I saw your site. Keep up the great work.
I’ve looked at numerous sites and not come across such a site as yours that tells everybody everything they need to know.
It is just exactly as you said.