ECan election ‘danger’ alert
A Canterbury farming leader fears proposals for a fully elected Environment Canterbury (ECan) for the first time in nine years could be ‘‘very, very dangerous’’ if environmental ‘‘extremists’’ are elected.
Environmental groups say the elections could be a ‘‘game changer’’ for the region and warnings about a polarised council were ‘‘scaremongering’’.
ECan has outlined plans for a fully democratically elected council for the first time since 2010, when the Government sacked ECan’s 14 councillors and installed commissioners over claims there were ‘‘deep-seated problems’’ with its water management strategy. The council changed to seven elected councillors and six appointed commissioners in 2016, but full democracy has never been reinstated.
Under the new proposals, the council would have 13 elected members from seven new constituencies across Canterbury. The proposal would see eight councillors elected from Christchurch city and five from rural Canterbury. While the wards are broadly split along population lines, they will see urban dwellers have more influence over environmental policy and water-quality standards.
A similar split existed before 2010 when there were 14 councillors with eight elected from Christchurch and six from rural areas.
Under the proposals there will be two councillors from the rural constituencies of North Canterbury, running roughly from Amberley up to Kaikoura and Mid-Canterbury, which is roughly from Amberley down to Geraldine. Only one councillor will represent South Canterbury, which takes in Geraldine to the Waitaki. The four urban constituencies are Christchurch west covering suburbs like Bishopdale, Avonhead and Halswell, Christchurch central covering the city centre, Linwood, Riccarton and Fendalton, Christchurch north covering Papanui and Burwood, and Christchurch South covering Spreydon, Cashmere, Heathcote and the Banks Peninsula. Two councillors will be elected from each.
Federated Farmers North Canterbury president Cameron Henderson feared the changes would take the council back to 2010.
‘‘It could mean that we end up with some polarising characters on the council that have some extreme views. We don’t want that from either end of the spectrum,’’ he said.
‘‘They have extreme views around what targets should exist for water quality and unrealistic timetables. They fail to see how it affects the system.’’
‘‘It is very, very dangerous if we end up with that. We have come a long way. I would hate to see extremists destabilise that.’’
‘We don’t want to return to a polarised council that makes poor decisions or no decisions at all.’’
He said rural representation was ‘‘needed as we will likely feel the economic fall out from any decisions.’’
Fish and Game environmental adviser Scott Pearson said it was right that city people were better represented on the ECan council as they paid rates and made use of rural areas for recreation and drinking water.
‘‘I wouldn’t want it to go from one extreme to the other – from the rural to the urban. I don’t think this will lead to more polarisation.’’
‘‘They will probably try and scaremonger that it will lead to polarisation. If it is done well it can minimise the amount of antagonism and legal fighting that goes on.’’
He said a new council could refocus on the environment rather than the economy.
‘‘Having a better representative model will provide a better voice for the environment.’’
Forest and Bird Canterbury West Coast regional manager Nicky Snoyink said the elections could lead to new environmental standards. She ran unsuccessfully for the MidCanterbury ECan seat in the 2016 election.
‘‘With a lot more environmentally aware candidates we have the potential to see a line drawn in the sand and see actual substance behind halting the loss of indigenous biodiversity.’’
But she said the council would not be deadlocked.
‘‘We won’t go back to how it was in 2010 because our understanding of each other’s perspectives is better.’’
ECan chairman Steve Lowndes said he did not think the changes would lead to a split council.