Water, Ecan: For goodness sake!

How on earth (or indeed in water) can the proposed replacement of a democratically elected body (ECan) be wiped out by the government without redress to the electorate.  Worse still why aren't we up in arms about this? 

Isn't this a far more serious and long reaching issue than the outrageous Art Centre development or the crippling of Radio NZ?  We have been seriously let down by elected officials who are expected to uphold democracy.

However badly run an organisation appears to be (and I can't be alone in distrusting the findings of this investigation) surely the first port of call is to modify management processes.  But the National Government's side kicks have decided in their dubious wisdom to skip that process and in effect to 'annex Poland'.

We wont have to wait long for 'water to be the new oil' and ownership / management of any region's water anywhere in the world will bring the same power over it's people that petrol prices, currently do.  It is not only the water we drink - water is a key component in business - agriculture and manufacturing.

Many Canterbury people feel our wonderful Christchurch water should remain free to its ratepayers. But as we hear more and more about dirty dairying and disrespectful overuse of our water, it is becoming more acceptable that there should be charges based on use and correct disposal - as long as it is done on a fair and reasonable basis.  

Already there has been voting on the use of water in Canterbury that has been proven to be a conflict of interest.  What was done about that?  A re-vote?  No -  a slap on the wrist and then this ACT-sponsored investigation designed to ensure the National government gets control of a large part of the South Island's water which it can then profit from at the expense of Canterbury residents.  No surprises then that agriculture has a very keen and incestuous interest in the management of the allocation of water in the region.

Early on in Bob Parker's days as mayor, many of us gasped in the railroading activities fronted by the mayor and passed without proper consultation.  We have had to stomach the debacle of the undemocratic purchasing of the Ellerslie Flower Show for $4million adding insult to injury by hiding the purchase price until there was confirmation of a profit;  then the Winter Festival and a folly of an Ice rink in Cathedral Square the economics of which melted without concern. And now we have to battle to keep the 'cultural centre' from being ruined by the bizarre idea to add a new building to the green space of the Art's Centre. Let's hope that if these are smoke screens for further behind the scenes dictatorship, transparency is quickly restored.

Bob Parker is charismatic and charming when you meet him.  He is confident that it will be worth his while to stand for re-election.  But in my opinion, behind that facade is a man intent on changing the fabric of Christchurch life for his own benefit and that of his commercial network, and leaving a permanent legacy - regardless of the duties of his office of which democracy, fairness and representation of the majority are cornerstones.