|
Erosion of Democracy Must be an Election Issue
Opinion by Tony Orman
Over the last decade or two - and even longer - I have had increasing concern that democracy is being eroded and is under continuing siege.
It should be an election issue. Democracy is precious and its integrity must be strongly guarded.
Two years ago the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ) expressed concern that parliament’s select committee democratic process was being undermined to the detriment of the public right to make submissions.
Current CORANZ Chairman Andi Cockroft made an oral submission to a select committee dealing with the Resource Management Act (RMA).
After being beforehand, granted 15 minutes speaking time the chairman interrupted Andi’s submission after five minutes and said the committee had heard enough thereby cutting the oral presentation short by ten minutes.
The rudeness and snub to democracy left Andi bewildered and angry.
But then, it had been happening for some years before. It’s in contrast to the 1970s when there was a move by the National government to bring in trout farming. Now trout in New Zealand are non-commercial and for very good reasons. Fish farming is environmentally disastrous. Diseases often flare up amongst the crowded fish in the pens and can spread to the natural wild populations. Fish farm effluent is polluting. It is bizarre governments have pushed for it because trout farming is a poor economic venture. As an American fish hatchery expert told me, “trout farming is capital intensive, marginally economic and high risk.”
There is no money to be made on export markets as European and American markets are saturated. Besides farmed trout are most unappetising. Budge Hintz former NZ Herald editor, trout angler once wrote that “a farmed trout can be likened to the felt sole out of a fishing wader, only the felt sole tastes better.”
Back in the 1970s I went before a parliamentary select committee and spent an hour and a half presenting my submission and answering questions.
Other select committees were the same. My submission to the Maori Fisheries Bill in 1990 was three quarters of an hour in presentation and fielding questions from two arrogant MPs in ACT's Ken Shirley and Labour’s Bill Sutton. I argued the fishery belonged to the people irrespective of ethnic background.
The arrogance manifested itself in downright aggression. Messrs Shirley and Sutton were not listening but were attacking.
Luckily I was rescued by none other than Winston Peters!
He arrived late, quickly summed things up and berated Sutton and Shirley, dressing them down in no uncertain fashion.
In 1986 John Henderson and I presented an hour long submission on behalf of the Federation of Rifle, Rod and Gun Sportsmen to a select committee considering the Conservation Law Reform Bill which resulted in the formation of Fish and Game Councils.
But now submissions are being severely - and arrogantly - restricted - as CORANZ found out in submitting to a bill around the RMA.
In 2007 there was the ERMA 1080 poison review in which submitters were mostly given just a token five minute slot. I said at the time, it was evident the ERMA 1080 review was nothing more than a “kangaroo court” and a “token nod” to consultation. The two biggest poison users DOC and OSPRI had requested it. The stench arising smelt of a jack up.
Given just five minutes I refused to travel at much expense across Cook Strait, to present a few minutes long submission. What with air fares, accommodation etc, the five minutes would be costly. Besides I’d already seen through the farce since the two big poison spreaders had requested the review. Predictably despite very expert scientific evidence against 1080, the government’s ERMA panel gave the green light to the poison.
To reiterate it’s been happening for quite a while and it’s fair to say the erosion of democracy is not confined to the current coalition government. The National coalition government (2008-2017) was guilty of a blatant breach of democracy when Prime Minister John Key and Environment Minister Nick Smith spearheaded the sacking of the democratically elected Environment Canterbury council and grabbed control by installing its own “state puppet” commissioners.
Another example was Environment Minister Nick Smith taking resource contents over 1080 poison aerial drops away from regional councils and public scrutiny and giving the government the sole, unassailable power to approve. Subsequently neither National or Labour governments have revoked that dictatorial move by Smith.
It removed the right of the public to express an opinion.
Politicians are treating the public with disdain, just making a token consultation to listening. After all MPs are in reality, public servants and the Prime Minister is not the people’s leader but the most senior public servant.
Behind central and local government elected representatives were bureaucrats who seemed to manipulate MPs and the procedures to suit political and/or self-serving agendas.
The public believe Parliament is the place of democracy - where you could get a fair hearing from elected representatives based on a historical and moral constitution of honour, truth and justice.
The manner in which firearm law changes following the Christchurch March 15, 2019 mosque tragedy, were rushed through with “thoroughly indecent haste” showed a total disregard for democracy. Consider the manner of the select committee dealing with 13,000 submissions in just two days. It defies credibility and shows a total lack of integrity.
It's therefore a logical reaction for the public to rate politicians, political parties and governments as among the most untrustworthy. The capture of Government departments and regional councils by industry groups is even more blatant and worrisome. The latest example being the Waikato Regional Council which granted farmers extra time to appeal their freshwater plans, but not anyone else.
There is an urgent crisis about the accelerating and alarming erosion of democracy and the strangling of the people’s voice. It needs strong reaction from an outraged public which is timely as this is an election year.
Talking of fish farming-- fish farming inevitably experiences fish deaths caused by either disease in concentrated, crammed fish pens or by warm water temperatures or a combination of both. King Salmon farm salmon in the Marlborough Sounds but have suffered high mortality among fish.
I asked an elected councillor to find out quantity of dead salmon dumped. She willingly agreed.
A few weeks later I received an e mail from a council bureaucrat. The information would not be released under the Official Information Act (OIA)as it was “commercially sensitive.”
I was puzzled. I never requested under the OIA.
Why was it “commercially sensitive”? After all King Salmon occupy public space belonging to you and me. I reasoned that corporate King Salmon with heavy Malaysian ownership, pay no rates for occupying public seabed space. But I pay rates.
And after all, the council’s land fill’s operation is in reality, funded and operated using my rates.
I learned that following my request dropping into the council’s bowels of bureaucracy, that a memo was immediately sent to all councillors ordering them not to ask questions from ratepayers.
It seemed to me that the people who elect councillors were being denied the right, by public servants paid by the people ratepayers, to ask their elected representatives for information relating to council. Surely an affront to democracy?
The bureaucrat’s email at least had a constructive suggestion - if not satisfied, go to the Ombudsman.
So I did.
The Ombudsman was diligent and most helpful. I was informed that information prised from Council was not what I requested. There was no tonnage of dead fish but simply “the tonnage of waste in the category ‘Sludges and Animal Waste’ that Edwards Logistics takes to landfill for NZKS. The Council has confirmed that these figures include dead fish waste, old nets, feedbags and other waste. This is the closest available information the Council holds in relation to your request.”
The Ombudsman agreed with me that “Council ought to have confirmed what information it had before declining your request on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.”
“Had the Council done so, it could have located this information earlier and explained to you that this was all it could find.”
The Ombudsman wrote to Council about its handling of my request.
Significantly the Ombudsman revealed that the Marlborough District Council “had received submissions from NZKS to this effect and was persuaded that release of this information, if it was held, would be commercially prejudicial.”
As stated - and for obvious reason - NZ King Salmon did not want the tonnages of dead fish disclosed. Is “commercial sensitivity” a valid reason given the public’s vested interest in funding the landfill, employing bureaucrats and in corporate King Salmon occupying public space for free?
The exercise left me wondering with words like democracy, public interest, public servants, bureaucrats swirling around.
There is an alarming decline in democracy.
And it’s related to the power of the executive, i.e. the bureaucrats. When bureaucrats dictate to and order elected councillors not to ask questions for the people and when bureaucrats seemingly show reluctance to openly answer genuine questions and erect obstacles, then democracy is under threat. Transparency and accountability are vanishing.
The inevitable question is who are bureaucrats more interested in serving - commercial interests or the public?
The erosion of democracy has over the past two decades or longer, increased. It underpins every issue whether it be the sacking of a democratically elected council Ecan by the Key government, insufficient submission times allocated for the public to express their views, even salmon farming in the Marlborough Sounds and numerous other issues.
Footnote: Tony Orman is a “swinging voter and belongs to no political party. |
