All posts in the topic Regoonal Government Group clarification needed. (Short link)

Topic Navigation

Useful Links

Topics in Canterbury Public Issues Forum

Summary

There are 7 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
Latest post made by Rik Tindall at Sep 07 01:26 UTC

From: Brian Sandle Date: Jul 26 03:17 UTC Short link

"The Press" this morning reported Crs saying that ECAN had a very long
meeting on the RGG and that consequently the ECAN process is not working.

An ECAN employee had been selected by ECAN for their rep on the RGG.
Apparently he had also written the report for the ECAN meeting on Thursday.

I select from it:

From:

http://crc.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A83B148B-5E3B-4A5C-9FED-4D518996760F/0/Cnclagenda240708.pdf

"Only by establishing the RGG as a CCO is Canterbury able to participate
and contest
funding for two regional economic development funds: The Regional
Strategy Fund (RSF)
($750,000 over three years) and the Enterprising Partnerships Fund (EPF)
(in excess of
$32.5 million over three years)."

As I see it that is not quality thinking as a CCO was only one of four
possible options on the Draft Annual Plan

The next matter is whether the organisation is exempt from reporting. If
it is it cannot be a CCO (see below.)

I am interested to see ECAN Cr Angus McKay also voted on to whatever
organisation it is.

On March 6 only Crs
Tindall and McKay opposed the adoption of the RGG CCO policy for the
Draft Plan.

Further I note:

"RECOMMENDATION
That the Council authorise the Chief Executive to submit proposals relating to
the Strategic
Water Study and the Regional Energy Strategy Project to the Regional Governance
Group
(RGG) for funding from the government’s Regional Strategy and Enterprising
Partnership
funds."

But it does not say _only_ those things. Furthermore it would be interesting to
see what they are straight away rather than having to wait for another meeting
when Crs decide whether to add funds from ECAN rates. That may not even happen
anyway if the regional contribution comes from business, and we might not hear
what is going on.

Brian Sandle

Brian Sandle wrote:
> Brian Sandle wrote:
>
>> paul scott wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Brian,
>>> Thanks for your synopsis.
>>> I rang Rik Tindall on this matter prior to submissions,
>>> but he told me about this impending  RGG CCO as already set and decided
>>> and apparently without any  analysis by Councillors.
>>> Tindall thought there was bugger all we could do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What do you think of this?: The proposed RGG CCO is working alongside
>> the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, so getting ECAN to ask that Councillors
>> may attend meetings as observers seems important.
>>
>>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D1DE8003-2BE6-4D8E-8A00-0C24D8E15BE4/0/CouncilAgenda24April2008.pdf
>>
>>
>> It was moved by Cr Tindall, seconded by Cr Sage, that the Chairman of
>> Environment
>>
>> Canterbury proposes to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum that Councillors of the
>>
>> Canterbury Mayoral Forum constituent Councils be able to attend the
>> Canterbury
>>
>> Mayoral Forum meetings in a spectator capacity.
>>
>> Cr Neill returned at 10.45 a.m.
>>
>> A Division was called for and the motion was CARRIED, the voting being
>> as follows:
>>
>> *For
>> *
>>
>> Cr Harrow
>>
>> Cr Tindall
>>
>> Cr Demeter
>>
>> Cr Burke
>>
>> Cr Evans
>>
>> Cr Sutherland
>>
>> Cr Sage
>>
>> Against
>>
>> Cr Kane
>>
>> Cr Oldfield
>>
>> Cr McKay
>>
>> Cr Kirk
>>
>> Cr Murray
>>
>> Cr Little
>>
>> Abstention
>>
>> Cr Neill
>>
>> /*Resolved*/
>>
>> /*That the Chairman of Environment Canterbury proposes to the Canterbury*/
>>
>> /*Mayoral Forum that Councillors of the Canterbury Mayoral Forum
>> constituent*/
>>
>> /*Councils be able to attend the Canterbury Mayoral Forum meetings in a*/
>>
>> /*spectator capacity.*/
>>
>>
>> That division is rather in contrast to the one on March 6 when only Crs
>> Tindall and McKay opposed the adoption of the RGG CCO policy for the
>> Draft Plan. :
>>
>>
>> So could there be some movement?
>>
>> The Mar 6 minutes:
>>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8B9D7D0C-5E83-4683-93FF-D5C3B5CC8707/0/Cnclagenda060308.pdf
>>
>>
>> "Full details of the proposal are included in the agenda paper.
>> This information will be included in Appendix 7 of the Draft Annual Plan
>> (the material arrived
>> too late for it to be included in the version distributed with this
>> agenda- a copy of Appendix 7
>> will be provided at the meeting)."
>>
>> That meeting ran from 1.55pm to 2.38 pm since Councillors had to catch a
>> bus. So since they only got the info at the meeting I don't see how they
>> could have  had time to do much but trust before voting. They also had
>> to  discuss within that time the Triennial Agrreement which had been
>> discussed by the Mayoral Forum and that refernces to the Local
>> Government Act and the Resource Management Act had been removed from it.
>>
>> Brian Sandle
>>
>>
>>
>>
>  From the Mar 6 ECAN agenda:
>
>
> g) That the proposed council controlled organisation being established
> in conjunction with the Mayoral Forum (yet to be named) be an exempt
> organisation in terms of section 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.
>
> The Councillors did pass that in the short meeting.
>
> Now
>
>
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM171482.html?search=ts_act_local
>
>
>   gives:
>
>      4) The following entities are not council-controlled organisations:
>
>            (e) New Zealand Local Government Association Incorporated; or
>
>            (i) an organisation exempted under section 7
>
> So the RGG  cannot be a CCO if exempted. It does not even have to give a
> statement of intent which even a CCO has to give.:
>
> The ECAN Draft Plan was consulting as if the protection of the statement
> of intent applied wasn't it?
>
>
http://0-www.aucklandcity.govt.nz.www.elgar.govt.nz/council/members/councilmeetings/20070823_1800/CNCL-23082007-AGD-%2309a.pdf
>
>
>
> Section 7(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) allows local
> authorities to exempt “small” organisations from Council Controlled
> Organisation (CCO) status. The practical effect of this is that exempted
> organisations do not have to produce a statement of intent or meet
> subsequent reporting requirements under the LGA. The rationale behind
> section 7 is that smaller CCOs may find the production of a statement of
> intent and subsequent reporting requirements to be onerous.
>
>
>  From The ECAN Draft plan p115 about the projects guided by the RGG:
>
> 2.2.2 Environmental considerations
>
> The assessment of the proposal did not highlight any major environmental
> considerations. The selected transformational projects may have both
> positive or negative environmental effects.
>
>
> contrasted with the Mayoral Forum:
>
> Charter of Purpose (Draft)
>
> Updated by Canterbury Mayoral Forum 25.02.08
>
>
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/proceedings/2008/February/CnclCover28th/Clause9Attachment.pdf
>
>
> [ struck out: (c) To formulate policies and strategies on matters where
> all member councils may act collaboratively in determining plans for the
> co-ordination of regional growth.]
>
> replaced with:
>
> (c) To formulate policies and strategies on matters where all member
> councils may act collaboratively in promoting sustainable development in
> the region.
>
>
> It seems that the RGG is intended to take over the function struck out
> from the Mayoral Forum, and that RGG projects may not be sustainable.
>
>
> As I posted last post, and quoted again above, ECAN Councillors have
> asked that they might be present as observers at the Mayoral Forum
> meetings. I feel that they should also ask for that at the RGG meetings.
>
>
> Since the reason for exempting the RGG is only to alleviate the onerous
> reporting and production of a statement of intent, then observers should
> not be excluded, at least from parts of meetings.. Otherwise it would
> seem that the claimed transparency does nto really exist, and  ECAN
> Councillors should vote against this exemption this time.
>
>
>
> Brian Sandle
>
> Info about Brian Sandle: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/briansandle
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/NOBQ8UIR8oylRxgph8tqs
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>

From: paul scott Date: Jul 28 08:10 UTC Short link

Strange bedfellows all over the place here Brian.
the Press article you refer to, refers to the fact
that every term Councillors at ECAN become despondent and cynical.
Carol Evans after many years at City Council, now transferred last election to
Regional says simply "ECAN doesn't work"
At least the votes are coming through non partisan ties.
Richard Tindal and Angus McKay voted against this weird new function for ECAN,
and we heard from Richard Tindall, but I don't know what Angus McKay is up to.
Maybe it fits in with some of his other meetings.

From: Rik Tindall Date: Aug 26 13:11 UTC Short link

Public accountability is so scant on this forum, that one must assume
one of two things: it's available elsewhere, or contempt. Here's some.

Answers for Brian. [drafting delayed, sorry]

We live, throughout the world, pinned by the talons of feudalism:
warlord territoriality. Anyone doubting it, search "Georgia Russia". But
what does this context mean within NZ local government? Well, it
explains a lot actually.

You see in the old days of feudalism, if authority wanted your land or
other resources they just took them. A bloody smear was all that
remained of any opposition. That primitive feudalism is gone, but not
the attitude - no, not all. You see it in modern resource management,
where the interests of development simply expect to get their way, and
who preen haughty upset when they do not. But get it they will, as in
overcome the popular resistance to water expropriation - because they
have (simply expect) power. Hide their tracks? - Why should they bother?
No accountability exists, the lords believe.

Brian Sandle wrote:
> "The Press" this morning reported Crs saying that ECAN had a very long
> meeting on the RGG and that consequently the ECAN process is not working.

No, it's the superficial Press reportage that is too often "not working":

"ECan splits revealed" (26 July 2008, A8) - over what?

This appointment to a board, true..

> An ECAN employee had been selected by ECAN for their rep on the RGG.
> Apparently he had also written the report for the ECAN meeting on Thursday.
>

..but also this:

Some of the same names, some of them mayors, having positions - in a
linked causal chain - from Mayoral Forum, to Strategic Water Study, to
Water Management Strategy, to Regional Governance Group. Now what about
the separation of functions? How is it that the bodies which will
nominate projects for funding  contain several of the same people who
will decide what projects to grant government funding to? How could they
ever evaluate projects objectively? What different conclusions or
decisions could they reach? How can we have confidence in such
multi-hatted officials?

Isn't there a deep root of English Common Law preventing "judge, jury
and executioner" scenarios?

- Not in local government. It reeks, and badly.

> From:
>
>
http://crc.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A83B148B-5E3B-4A5C-9FED-4D518996760F/0/Cnclagenda240708.pdf
>
> "Only by establishing the RGG as a CCO is Canterbury able to participate
> and contest funding for two regional economic development funds: The Regional
> Strategy Fund (RSF) ($750,000 over three years) and the Enterprising
Partnerships Fund (EPF)

> (in excess of $32.5 million over three years)."
>
> As I see it that is not quality thinking as a CCO was only one of four
> possible options on the Draft Annual Plan
>
> The next matter is whether the organisation is exempt from reporting. If
> it is it cannot be a CCO (see below.)
>
> I am interested to see ECAN Cr Angus McKay also voted on to whatever
> organisation it is.
>
> On March 6 only Crs Tindall and McKay opposed the adoption of the RGG CCO
policy for the
> Draft Plan.

At that point the reason given was the poor quality and expected
rejection of the CCO Plan input (that places economic objectives above
any environmental ones) - from the "conservationist" lobby. These have
clearly now failed you.

But since Council never discussed submissions against the CCO at all -
failing again in its statutory RMA obligation to 'weigh all
contributions' - it's now got through to the appointments noted above.

Canterbury Manufacturers' Association submitted as being "uncomfortable
with another layer of governance.. [seeing an] artificial environment
created by the regional development grant policy.. [as a] winner picking
monster." - meaning industrialised land use, emissions preferentiality, etc.

- Never discussed at all! - Very much like the 43-minute Council meeting
in Timaru which unceremoniously shoved the CCO into the Annual Plan in
the first place. No opposition from the "conservationist" lobby at all
then either.

Then you realise there's something seriously wrong around the top
council table.

Abuses of authority to shut down dissent. But worse, much worse.

As certified RMA commissioners it is councillors' LGA responsibility to
iron out each others' wrinkles, so to speak, to maximise propriety of
function. 'Conflicts of interest at the council table? - Unheard of!'
Yeah, right. The allocation of portfolio duties was bad from the start,
benefiting most they that dished them out. Promise of a 6-month review?
- Broken. Give the chief self-aggrandiser the boot? - Probably
essential. The substantial conflicts of interest at council - all of
them - must be expeditiously expunged.

How could all this be happening - isn't this "democracy"? No, it's
feudalism. Barbarous and ignorant - just like its results:

Mayors/chairs greedy for rating/development growth - led by roading
expansion to facilitate more intensive resource exploitation,
particularly water (through public-private storage). Here's the irony:
these same 'help yourself' mayors, who've run their districts dry most
years, and are fixated on artificial water $torage, haven't noticed the
free and deep pooling of it around their ankles; they too easily forget
their primary responsibility to residents, such as those of Amberly
Beach, and leave them "high and dry" (not). Shame on such politicians!

The very worst abuse of council authority is sourced in North
Canterbury, currently. It was told to them, just months ago - seek
council meeting transcripts for verification - something close to:
"Ignore the climate effects of your excessive agricultural practices,
and you will pay for it. [You have been warned.] The price will be paid
in animal stock; there will be large losses, mainly from drought. That
is your capital, lost. But these will be your stock and not mine." ...
Around 120 cows floated away, to probale death, in the Eyre River yesterday.

Voters have a democratic choice all right, but it has been between
'rotten' and 'rottener' - just like what this limited choice has been
steadily doing to the Canterbury Plains: making it reek, dangerous, and
spoiling the water.

Now, by no admitted accident, you've come to understand the complexion
of Election'08.

Those new roads both main political blocs want to accelerate - for
bigger export trucks, that you will have to pay for - they don't have
the building aggregate (gravel supply). In Canterbury, this means new
excavation pits atop Christchurch's aquifer recharge zone, exposing
groundwater to contamination, some propose. - For ******'s sake! Have
they learned nothing from last year's local elections!!..

There's a reason for the district-pooled roading approach, the same as
in Auckland: to write public representatives out of the decision making
to the greatest extent possible. 'Region' is executively embodied
elsewhere thus, to fast-track big cash-delivery plans. Blatant
obstruction or hijack of environmental concerns this is: it adds
irrigation expansion onto drought mitigation arguments, producing
greater dependency on nature's overdraft duplicitly. Unitary direction
is so defined.

As for the "conservationists" - who see their sacred toes under the
table of said comittees as being sufficient for some kind of turnaround
- they are misled or deluded, having gulped the 'rotten' weevil down
(the lesser of two). Beware its effects. Last week, Regional Policy
Committee furthered editing of its most important guiding document draft
- the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement - renewed once every ten
years and so  currently. Here is some resultant "conservationist"
achievement (against which my vote stood as the sole oppositional voice):

19Aug08: Energy, Policy 3 - possible changes to give effect to proposed
National Policy Statement (NPS):

"Having particular regard to the relative reversibility of adverse
environmental effects associated with renewable energy generation
infrastructure" - Removed!

"Enabling identification of renewable electricity generation
possibilities" - Removed!

As stated - no idea. No economic analysis, nor proposals to put forward
for meeting any necessary growth, at all. No wind power; no power.

How I understand this socially destructive "conservationist" approach
is, as a knee-jerk and unprincipled way of trying to defend Mount Cass
natural values - which I too would wish to protect. But a positive,
practical and principled way of protecting Mount Cass would have been to
use the NPS to find the best alternate sites, instead of a blunder-buss
typical 'know best' and short-sighted demolition of initiative. Nonsensical.

Look, too, at the other Council, for more of what's wrong and
historically redundant: a ratepayer bailout of stadium development, even
before a developer has gone belly-up in chasing return on his
investment. "Venal" is the only word signaled to aid comprehension -
"governed by a sordid love of gain" [Dictionary 2.20.0.1].

Christchurch Star, 22Aug08: Profile - Tony Marryatt - "On top of the town"

"Last year's Bon Jovi concert was a case in point, he said. 'Council
contributed $50,000 towards the event to ensure that there was only one
concert in the country, and 55% of the tickets were sold to people
outside of Christchurch. So you can see straight off the economic
benefits of that - the city's hotels were full, flights were booked, the
city was booming.'" This confirms a number of things:

i) residents are of far less value than businesses, except that they
carry the costs
ii) alcohol problems on our streets are no accident
iii) someone in this picture has the reputation of placing a bar on
every street corner downtown
iv) etc. etc.
v) CEO's are typically paid at seven times the rate of councilor
honoraria - so in which offices is the real decision-making happening?
Hint: councilors have no individual domicile in council offices,
sometimes just a pigeonhole for finding them.
vi) Corporatisation of (local) government is the greatest of all current
political challenges, and smacks heavily of ominous decades.

It is a very new broom required indeed, in 2010, to sweep the length and
breadth of Canterbury politics clean, of all such council shenanigans.
Only this measure stands a chance of reining in the rampant exploitation
of captive populations and countryside. Welcome to the alternative campaign.

> "RECOMMENDATION
> That the Council authorise the Chief Executive to submit proposals relating
to the Strategic
> Water Study and the Regional Energy Strategy Project to the Regional
Governance Group
> (RGG) for funding from the government’s Regional Strategy and Enterprising
Partnership
> funds."
>
> But it does not say _only_ those things. Furthermore it would be interesting
to see what they are straight away rather than having to wait for another
meeting when Crs decide whether to add funds from ECAN rates. That may not even
happen anyway if the regional contribution comes from business, and we might
not hear what is going on.
>

Bulk public-private and overseas investment most likely, unless halted.

>>> paul scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brian,
>>>> Thanks for your synopsis.
>>>> I rang Rik Tindall on this matter prior to submissions,
>>>> but he told me about this impending  RGG CCO as already set and decided
>>>> and apparently without any  analysis by Councillors.
>>>> Tindall thought there was bugger all we could do.
>>>>

..until the next elections, then hit 'em hard, perhaps. Such questions
are very complex, and answered with requisite effort.

The facts show, methodologically the blue-bloods (and pale blues) are
historically redundant. No remedies to offer at all, no vision, just
deeper debt (public asset transfers to developers, New Deal era debt
loading). It's a bit like a putative 'no heat' program, which through
misleading advertising intentionally makes low income homes colder and
more dependent on less reliable and inflationary supply, so that
industry can have their emission right to expand instead of
householders, while extracting still higher profits from them.

 - That'll be the effect of "tax cuts": privatised health and schooling,
bigger costs to households. Serfs have always had it hardest. Eating is
steadily becoming harder, with consumption shifting thus.

>>> What do you think of this?: The proposed RGG CCO is working alongside
>>> the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, so getting ECAN to ask that Councillors
>>> may attend meetings as observers seems important.
>>>
>>>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D1DE8003-2BE6-4D8E-8A00-0C24D8E15BE4/0/CouncilAgenda24April2008.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> For
>>>
>>> Cr Harrow
>>>
>>> Cr Tindall
>>>
>>> Cr Demeter
>>>
>>> Cr Burke
>>>
>>> Cr Evans
>>>
>>> Cr Sutherland
>>>
>>> Cr Sage
>>>
>>> Against
>>>
>>> Cr Kane
>>>
>>> Cr Oldfield
>>>
>>> Cr McKay
>>>
>>> Cr Kirk
>>>
>>> Cr Murray
>>>
>>> Cr Little
>>>
>>> Abstention
>>>
>>> Cr Neill
>>>
>>> /*Resolved*/
>>>
>>>
>>> The Mar 6 minutes:
>>>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8B9D7D0C-5E83-4683-93FF-D5C3B5CC8707/0/Cnclagenda060308.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>> "Full details of the proposal are included in the agenda paper.
>>> This information will be included in Appendix 7 of the Draft Annual Plan
>>> (the material arrived too late for it to be included in the version
distributed with this
>>> agenda - a copy of Appendix 7 will be provided at the meeting)."
>>>
>>> That meeting ran from 1.55pm to 2.38 pm since Councillors had to catch a
>>> bus. So since they only got the info at the meeting I don't see how they
>>> could have had time to do much but trust before voting. They also had
>>> to  discuss within that time the Triennial Agrreement which had been
>>> discussed by the Mayoral Forum and that references to the Local
>>> Government Act and the Resource Management Act had been removed from it.
>> From The ECAN Draft plan p115 about the projects guided by the RGG:
>>
>> "2.2.2 Environmental considerations
>>
>> The assessment of the proposal did not highlight any major environmental
>> considerations. The selected transformational projects may have both
>> positive or negative environmental effects."
>>
>> As I posted last post, and quoted again above, ECAN Councillors have
>> asked that they might be present as observers at the Mayoral Forum
>> meetings. I feel that they should also ask for that at the RGG meetings.
>>
>> Since the reason for exempting the RGG is only to alleviate the onerous
>> reporting and production of a statement of intent, then observers should
>> not be excluded, at least from parts of meetings.. Otherwise it would
>> seem that the claimed transparency doesn't really exist, and ECAN
>> Councillors should vote against this exemption this time.
>>

Agreed. "Judge, jury, and executioner" - oppose with vigor, or stand
answerable to all.

Regards, Rik

From: N. Perzylo Date: Aug 26 20:21 UTC Short link

Rik,
Being elected into a position that you now see how the D in democracy means
Diddly squat, you are reporting how we are govern without our consent.

I can see how people go into politics to make change, and get outta there
disillusionned. We need more conciousness people around the table, and I
hope you haven't given up the fight. And it IS too bad it is a fight. You'd
think that people in 'high' offices aren't chasing the money and power, but
want to leave the city in a better state than they found it.

On this yet again miserable foggy wet cold day, reading your words about how
this city is govern makes me want to crawl back into bed.

Thanks for taking the time to giving us a reason to call in sick (chuckle)
We need more people like you in there... keep smiling...

From: Brian Sandle Date: Aug 26 21:29 UTC Short link

Rik Tindall wrote:
> Public accountability is so scant on this forum, that one must assume
> one of two things: it's available elsewhere, or contempt. Here's some.
>
> Answers for Brian. [drafting delayed, sorry]
>
> We live, throughout the world, pinned by the talons of feudalism:
> warlord territoriality. Anyone doubting it, search "Georgia Russia". But
> what does this context mean within NZ local government? Well, it
> explains a lot actually.
>
> You see in the old days of feudalism, if authority wanted your land or
> other resources they just took them. A bloody smear was all that
> remained of any opposition. That primitive feudalism is gone, but not
> the attitude - no, not all. You see it in modern resource management,
> where the interests of development simply expect to get their way, and
> who preen haughty upset when they do not. But get it they will, as in
> overcome the popular resistance to water expropriation - because they
> have (simply expect) power. Hide their tracks? - Why should they bother?
> No accountability exists, the lords believe.
>
Thanks Rik.

Two weeks ago I presented to ERMA on the matter of controlled field
release of genetically modified onion garlic and leek crops planned for
Lincoln. There were several police in attendance as I arrived as well as
uniformed security constantly on watch in the hearing.

I tried to point out that while rules said matters relating to wider
issues of GM release would be excluded from consideration however
AgResearch were allowed by the ERMA Agency report to count supposed
benefits of extrapolating their research - projecting supposed pesticide
savings of wider release.

People have strong intutions against meddling with the natural
safeguards against alien gene transfer. My submissions against GMOs more
than 10 years ago included an intuition about what I thought could be
protecting 'genes of self modification'. GM scientists were labelling
the bulk of DNA as 'junk' and of no significance except as past history,
I understood. By the year 2003 it actually was found that this
repetitive DNA contains the ability of the organism to 'naturally
genetically engineer' itself, that is to relate to various changes in
conditions - stresses such as drought or pests, lack of nutrition, I
believe.

Now from the recent article:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/USDAgifttoMonsanto.php

The biotech industry has been able to persuade the USA govt for  tax
payers  to heavily subsidise GM farmers' insurance premiums on GM crop
failure.

"GM maize lines are protected against corn borer and rootworm, but not
particularly well protected against drought, excessive moisture, hail,
wind, frost and disease, nor against the numerous insect pest that are
likely to take advantage of reduced competition from borer or  root
worm. It may be that the stacked maize lines will benefit from a USDA
give-away insurance that specifically protects against any such
secondary insect pests; for they have indeed already emerged in China
and India as the result of growing Bt cotton "

from:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/foodWithoutFossilFuels.php

"India has been hit by an epidemic of farmers’ suicide at an average of
10 000 a year before escalating to 16 000 a year when GM crops were
introduced (see Chapter 23 of our Report [1]). But in 2007, a record 25
000 farmers took their own lives "

It seems the GMO companies are no longer trying to promote GMOs as an
answer to food shortages.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Exposed_GM-hype.php?
" says Monsanto's chief technology officer Rob Fraley [14], "From a
production perspective, we have abundance [of food]". Fraley now says
the "challenges" are in distribution and access to food because of
wealth distribution, in other words, poverty."

Now the NZ emissions trading scheme may go ahead we need to be very
vigilant that biofuel crops are not given a fictitious value. Then our
taxes would be falsely supporting them and very likely a push to grow
GMO crops here with their big thirst for water.
With the secrecy of the RGG how could we know? And if we cannot know
matters relating to publicly funded things that must degrade the value
of our right to freedom of expression.

I see

Monsanto announced on August 6 it will "divest" or sell off its
controversial genetically engineered animal drug, recombinant Bovine
Growth Hormone (rBGH). Monsanto's divestment of rBGH is a direct result
of 14 years of determined opposition by organic consumer, public
interest, and family farmer groups.

Fortunately that milk production stimulant was never allowed here.

Thanks for your exhortation, Rik.

Brian Sandle

> Brian Sandle wrote:
>
>> "The Press" this morning reported Crs saying that ECAN had a very long
>> meeting on the RGG and that consequently the ECAN process is not working.
>>
>
> No, it's the superficial Press reportage that is too often "not working":
>
> "ECan splits revealed" (26 July 2008, A8) - over what?
>
> This appointment to a board, true..
>
>
>> An ECAN employee had been selected by ECAN for their rep on the RGG.
>> Apparently he had also written the report for the ECAN meeting on Thursday.
>>
>>
>
> ..but also this:
>
> Some of the same names, some of them mayors, having positions - in a
> linked causal chain - from Mayoral Forum, to Strategic Water Study, to
> Water Management Strategy, to Regional Governance Group. Now what about
> the separation of functions? How is it that the bodies which will
> nominate projects for funding  contain several of the same people who
> will decide what projects to grant government funding to? How could they
> ever evaluate projects objectively? What different conclusions or
> decisions could they reach? How can we have confidence in such
> multi-hatted officials?
>
> Isn't there a deep root of English Common Law preventing "judge, jury
> and executioner" scenarios?
>
> - Not in local government. It reeks, and badly.
>
>
>> From:
>>
>>
http://crc.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/A83B148B-5E3B-4A5C-9FED-4D518996760F/0/Cnclagenda240708.pdf
>>
>> "Only by establishing the RGG as a CCO is Canterbury able to participate
>> and contest funding for two regional economic development funds: The
Regional
>> Strategy Fund (RSF) ($750,000 over three years) and the Enterprising
Partnerships Fund (EPF)
>> (in excess of $32.5 million over three years)."
>>
>> As I see it that is not quality thinking as a CCO was only one of four
>> possible options on the Draft Annual Plan
>>
>> The next matter is whether the organisation is exempt from reporting. If
>> it is it cannot be a CCO (see below.)
>>
>> I am interested to see ECAN Cr Angus McKay also voted on to whatever
>> organisation it is.
>>
>> On March 6 only Crs Tindall and McKay opposed the adoption of the RGG CCO
policy for the
>> Draft Plan.
>>
>
> At that point the reason given was the poor quality and expected
> rejection of the CCO Plan input (that places economic objectives above
> any environmental ones) - from the "conservationist" lobby. These have
> clearly now failed you.
>
> But since Council never discussed submissions against the CCO at all -
> failing again in its statutory RMA obligation to 'weigh all
> contributions' - it's now got through to the appointments noted above.
>
> Canterbury Manufacturers' Association submitted as being "uncomfortable
> with another layer of governance.. [seeing an] artificial environment
> created by the regional development grant policy.. [as a] winner picking
> monster." - meaning industrialised land use, emissions preferentiality, etc.
>
> - Never discussed at all! - Very much like the 43-minute Council meeting
> in Timaru which unceremoniously shoved the CCO into the Annual Plan in
> the first place. No opposition from the "conservationist" lobby at all
> then either.
>
> Then you realise there's something seriously wrong around the top
> council table.
>
> Abuses of authority to shut down dissent. But worse, much worse.
>
> As certified RMA commissioners it is councillors' LGA responsibility to
> iron out each others' wrinkles, so to speak, to maximise propriety of
> function. 'Conflicts of interest at the council table? - Unheard of!'
> Yeah, right. The allocation of portfolio duties was bad from the start,
> benefiting most they that dished them out. Promise of a 6-month review?
> - Broken. Give the chief self-aggrandiser the boot? - Probably
> essential. The substantial conflicts of interest at council - all of
> them - must be expeditiously expunged.
>
> How could all this be happening - isn't this "democracy"? No, it's
> feudalism. Barbarous and ignorant - just like its results:
>
> Mayors/chairs greedy for rating/development growth - led by roading
> expansion to facilitate more intensive resource exploitation,
> particularly water (through public-private storage). Here's the irony:
> these same 'help yourself' mayors, who've run their districts dry most
> years, and are fixated on artificial water $torage, haven't noticed the
> free and deep pooling of it around their ankles; they too easily forget
> their primary responsibility to residents, such as those of Amberly
> Beach, and leave them "high and dry" (not). Shame on such politicians!
>
> The very worst abuse of council authority is sourced in North
> Canterbury, currently. It was told to them, just months ago - seek
> council meeting transcripts for verification - something close to:
> "Ignore the climate effects of your excessive agricultural practices,
> and you will pay for it. [You have been warned.] The price will be paid
> in animal stock; there will be large losses, mainly from drought. That
> is your capital, lost. But these will be your stock and not mine." ...
> Around 120 cows floated away, to probale death, in the Eyre River yesterday.
>
> Voters have a democratic choice all right, but it has been between
> 'rotten' and 'rottener' - just like what this limited choice has been
> steadily doing to the Canterbury Plains: making it reek, dangerous, and
> spoiling the water.
>
> Now, by no admitted accident, you've come to understand the complexion
> of Election'08.
>
> Those new roads both main political blocs want to accelerate - for
> bigger export trucks, that you will have to pay for - they don't have
> the building aggregate (gravel supply). In Canterbury, this means new
> excavation pits atop Christchurch's aquifer recharge zone, exposing
> groundwater to contamination, some propose. - For ******'s sake! Have
> they learned nothing from last year's local elections!!..
>
> There's a reason for the district-pooled roading approach, the same as
> in Auckland: to write public representatives out of the decision making
> to the greatest extent possible. 'Region' is executively embodied
> elsewhere thus, to fast-track big cash-delivery plans. Blatant
> obstruction or hijack of environmental concerns this is: it adds
> irrigation expansion onto drought mitigation arguments, producing
> greater dependency on nature's overdraft duplicitly. Unitary direction
> is so defined.
>
> As for the "conservationists" - who see their sacred toes under the
> table of said comittees as being sufficient for some kind of turnaround
> - they are misled or deluded, having gulped the 'rotten' weevil down
> (the lesser of two). Beware its effects. Last week, Regional Policy
> Committee furthered editing of its most important guiding document draft
> - the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement - renewed once every ten
> years and so  currently. Here is some resultant "conservationist"
> achievement (against which my vote stood as the sole oppositional voice):
>
> 19Aug08: Energy, Policy 3 - possible changes to give effect to proposed
> National Policy Statement (NPS):
>
> "Having particular regard to the relative reversibility of adverse
> environmental effects associated with renewable energy generation
> infrastructure" - Removed!
>
> "Enabling identification of renewable electricity generation
> possibilities" - Removed!
>
> As stated - no idea. No economic analysis, nor proposals to put forward
> for meeting any necessary growth, at all. No wind power; no power.
>
> How I understand this socially destructive "conservationist" approach
> is, as a knee-jerk and unprincipled way of trying to defend Mount Cass
> natural values - which I too would wish to protect. But a positive,
> practical and principled way of protecting Mount Cass would have been to
> use the NPS to find the best alternate sites, instead of a blunder-buss
> typical 'know best' and short-sighted demolition of initiative. Nonsensical.
>
> Look, too, at the other Council, for more of what's wrong and
> historically redundant: a ratepayer bailout of stadium development, even
> before a developer has gone belly-up in chasing return on his
> investment. "Venal" is the only word signaled to aid comprehension -
> "governed by a sordid love of gain" [Dictionary 2.20.0.1].
>
> Christchurch Star, 22Aug08: Profile - Tony Marryatt - "On top of the town"
>
> "Last year's Bon Jovi concert was a case in point, he said. 'Council
> contributed $50,000 towards the event to ensure that there was only one
> concert in the country, and 55% of the tickets were sold to people
> outside of Christchurch. So you can see straight off the economic
> benefits of that - the city's hotels were full, flights were booked, the
> city was booming.'" This confirms a number of things:
>
> i) residents are of far less value than businesses, except that they
> carry the costs
> ii) alcohol problems on our streets are no accident
> iii) someone in this picture has the reputation of placing a bar on
> every street corner downtown
> iv) etc. etc.
> v) CEO's are typically paid at seven times the rate of councilor
> honoraria - so in which offices is the real decision-making happening?
> Hint: councilors have no individual domicile in council offices,
> sometimes just a pigeonhole for finding them.
> vi) Corporatisation of (local) government is the greatest of all current
> political challenges, and smacks heavily of ominous decades.
>
> It is a very new broom required indeed, in 2010, to sweep the length and
> breadth of Canterbury politics clean, of all such council shenanigans.
> Only this measure stands a chance of reining in the rampant exploitation
> of captive populations and countryside. Welcome to the alternative campaign.
>
>
>> "RECOMMENDATION
>> That the Council authorise the Chief Executive to submit proposals relating
to the Strategic
>> Water Study and the Regional Energy Strategy Project to the Regional
Governance Group
>> (RGG) for funding from the government’s Regional Strategy and Enterprising
Partnership
>> funds."
>>
>> But it does not say _only_ those things. Furthermore it would be interesting
to see what they are straight away rather than having to wait for another
meeting when Crs decide whether to add funds from ECAN rates. That may not even
happen anyway if the regional contribution comes from business, and we might
not hear what is going on.
>>
>>
>
> Bulk public-private and overseas investment most likely, unless halted.
>
>
>>>> paul scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Brian,
>>>>> Thanks for your synopsis.
>>>>> I rang Rik Tindall on this matter prior to submissions,
>>>>> but he told me about this impending  RGG CCO as already set and decided
>>>>> and apparently without any  analysis by Councillors.
>>>>> Tindall thought there was bugger all we could do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> ..until the next elections, then hit 'em hard, perhaps. Such questions
> are very complex, and answered with requisite effort.
>
> The facts show, methodologically the blue-bloods (and pale blues) are
> historically redundant. No remedies to offer at all, no vision, just
> deeper debt (public asset transfers to developers, New Deal era debt
> loading). It's a bit like a putative 'no heat' program, which through
> misleading advertising intentionally makes low income homes colder and
> more dependent on less reliable and inflationary supply, so that
> industry can have their emission right to expand instead of
> householders, while extracting still higher profits from them.
>
>  - That'll be the effect of "tax cuts": privatised health and schooling,
> bigger costs to households. Serfs have always had it hardest. Eating is
> steadily becoming harder, with consumption shifting thus.
>
>
>>>> What do you think of this?: The proposed RGG CCO is working alongside
>>>> the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, so getting ECAN to ask that Councillors
>>>> may attend meetings as observers seems important.
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D1DE8003-2BE6-4D8E-8A00-0C24D8E15BE4/0/CouncilAgenda24April2008.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For
>>>>
>>>> Cr Harrow
>>>>
>>>> Cr Tindall
>>>>
>>>> Cr Demeter
>>>>
>>>> Cr Burke
>>>>
>>>> Cr Evans
>>>>
>>>> Cr Sutherland
>>>>
>>>> Cr Sage
>>>>
>>>> Against
>>>>
>>>> Cr Kane
>>>>
>>>> Cr Oldfield
>>>>
>>>> Cr McKay
>>>>
>>>> Cr Kirk
>>>>
>>>> Cr Murray
>>>>
>>>> Cr Little
>>>>
>>>> Abstention
>>>>
>>>> Cr Neill
>>>>
>>>> /*Resolved*/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Mar 6 minutes:
>>>>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8B9D7D0C-5E83-4683-93FF-D5C3B5CC8707/0/Cnclagenda060308.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Full details of the proposal are included in the agenda paper.
>>>> This information will be included in Appendix 7 of the Draft Annual Plan
>>>> (the material arrived too late for it to be included in the version
distributed with this
>>>> agenda - a copy of Appendix 7 will be provided at the meeting)."
>>>>
>>>> That meeting ran from 1.55pm to 2.38 pm since Councillors had to catch a
>>>> bus. So since they only got the info at the meeting I don't see how they
>>>> could have had time to do much but trust before voting. They also had
>>>> to  discuss within that time the Triennial Agrreement which had been
>>>> discussed by the Mayoral Forum and that references to the Local
>>>> Government Act and the Resource Management Act had been removed from it.
>>>>
>>> From The ECAN Draft plan p115 about the projects guided by the RGG:
>>>
>>> "2.2.2 Environmental considerations
>>>
>>> The assessment of the proposal did not highlight any major environmental
>>> considerations. The selected transformational projects may have both
>>> positive or negative environmental effects."
>>>
>>> As I posted last post, and quoted again above, ECAN Councillors have
>>> asked that they might be present as observers at the Mayoral Forum
>>> meetings. I feel that they should also ask for that at the RGG meetings.
>>>
>>> Since the reason for exempting the RGG is only to alleviate the onerous
>>> reporting and production of a statement of intent, then observers should
>>> not be excluded, at least from parts of meetings.. Otherwise it would
>>> seem that the claimed transparency doesn't really exist, and ECAN
>>> Councillors should vote against this exemption this time.
>>>
>>>
>
> Agreed. "Judge, jury, and executioner" - oppose with vigor, or stand
> answerable to all.
>
> Regards, Rik
>
> Richard Tindall
> Cashmere, South Christchurch , O-Tautahi
> Info about Rik Tindall: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/riktindall
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5zKE4vWHLt8rRr0gYPDEQl
> -----------------------------------------
>   To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>   To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>   in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>   More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
>   http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
>   E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>

From: Rik Tindall Date: Sep 04 04:14 UTC Short link

Hello CPIF, and thanks Blair, Natalie, Brian, Paul, Kerry, and Andrew,
for keeping critical thinking alive of late.

"Public accountability.."
>> ..throughout the world, pinned by.. [vestigial] feudalism.. within NZ local
government.. it
>> explains a lot..

..like how well democracy doth fare. [1]

>> Some of the same names.. in a linked causal chain
>> - from.. Strategic Water Study, to
>> Water Management Strategy, to Regional Governance Group. Now what about
>> the separation of functions?..

Thursday 28 August's ECan Timaru council meeting clarified this matter
around the new RGG, and much more besides.

Discussion was secured, including Chief Executive advice, that in
meeting (Labour) central government objectives, the Regional Governance
Group could consist of whatever membership local authorities saw
necessary. So "judge and jury" disqualification does not apply here.
There is immediate enabling of the RGG - through whichever suitable
personnel - for the purposes or regional development, by central
government directive. But getting this answer articulated at Council
proved to be another revealing tussle.

>> Brian Sandle wrote:
>>
>> I am interested to see ECAN Cr Angus McKay also voted on to whatever
>> organisation it is.

See August 28th's ECan agenda papers for the (type of) necessary motion,
for reopening debate: "That Council elect a replacement representative
on the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, so that Councilor McKay can
have more support in his new role on the Regional Governance Group";
moved Cr Tindall and seconded Cr Oldfield (thanks Mark).

Firstly, towards discussion, a point of clarification established that
the reason this motion had not been accepted at 24 July 2008 council -
as an item 6e into the minutes for that day - was that it was ruled "Out
of Order" at the assertion of Deputy Chair Kane, as upheld by Chairman
Burke. But now, with pursued due process and a fair hearing, the matter
could be resolved (though the motion was then lost).

"Abuse of authority" is thus now better documented: there was no basis
for ruling discussion of RGG membership "Out of Order" in the first
place. Such devices for rudely shutting down debate belong to the
Sincerely and provenly Anti-Democratic (SAD) political breeds, which
need weeding out of councils for democracy to ever gain full dynamic
meaning.

The substantive difference between motion 24Jul08 6d (where Council
"Requests that the Regional Council representative [on RGG] seeks
Council views on significant applications under the Enterprising
Partnership Fund before decisons are made and reports back to Council
regularly" Sage/McKay - carried) and '6e' (ruled out by the Chair)
appears to be nothing more than Labour/2021 association. SAD = 'rotten'?

During discussion of the above motion '24Jul08 6e', councilors Kane and
Murray both opined on the question of "bias", in relation to Cr McKay's
new position now under debate (on the RGG membership). As a question of
representative process had been raised by the Tindall/Oldfield motion,
and not a matter of "bias", this supplementary issue went unanswered.

Further on this day, Council endorsed the work(?) of its Labour-led
Regional Planning Committee (RPC, which would have been inquorate for
advancing any such content the week before, had I absented myself in
protest). Cr McKay here achieved inclusion of "Community-scale
irrigation infrastructure" as "regionally significant infrastructure"
within Objective 2 of our most important guiding document - the
Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS; Chapter 12, Urban and rural
development) - before this draft goes out for public consultation. Cr
McKay argued along the lines by which Christchurch Airport airspace is
up for protection in the proposed NRRP / Urban Development Strategy -
from encircling housing development - for future expansion of services
with permitted noise limits. Cr McKay won the case that 'irrigation
systems need protection' - from competing land-use demands such as new
power line infrastructure - 'like airports, in order to spread them'
(addressing Chapter 12's Policy 10). Raising district and inter-district
historic irrigation schemes to "regionally significant" status -
arguably? - is one thing; setting a course for economy shaping via our
'RMA resource defender' body is quite another; should we be going there,
and with which set of 'sustainability' expectations?

Not successful, thus, was my second attempt to have Energy Policy 3 -
"possible changes to give effect to proposed National Policy Statement"
(NPS) - put back into the draft CRPS: "Having particular regard to the
relative reversibility of adverse environmental effects associated with
renewable energy generation infrastructure", and "Enabling
identification of renewable electricity generation possibilities". It
failed this way:

Conservative leader Cr Alec Neill raised a Point of Order to obstruct a
motion excluding deletion of the above two points, which would have
favoured wind energy (Tindall/Murray, thanks Bronwen - ruled "Out of
Order" due to the slow and solitary appearance of seconder - where are
'the greens' on Council?), despite the fact that no discussion of it at
all had taken place in RPC. Now Cr Neill was preventing any discussion
of renewable energy at Council too - provenly SAD. With 'rotten' as bad
as it is, why would anyone be wanting to choose 'rottener' so? Why
should wind energy planning for Canterbury be lost to the CRPS, with
process as bad as this towards single site protection and unsustainable
energy generation? No more "Horourables" or "Sirs" should be recognised
at ECan, it is fair to say - only SAD politicians dominate. Where the
term "democracy" is being utilised on Council, "managed ignorance" would
be equally applicable.

Another telling result from the 28 August Council meeting was that
concerning our proposed use of STV for the next local body election in
2010. In debate, it was clearly maintained that STV was, for ECan, an
important matter of representation "fairness" and "principle". The only
Councilors ready, as yet, to support representative fairness and
principle, throughout Canterbury, were Councilors Tindall, Sutherland,
Sage, Kirk and Burke - STV motion lost 8:5. "A lot of patch protection
there" was one comment afterwards, with the majority of Councilors
feeling 'answerable to their districts and constituencies' on this point
of defending property advantage etc. To change this anti-STV decision
for 2010, 19,319 signatures of current electors (5%) are required by 28
February 2009 - look for the notice in Saturday's Press and other South
Island newspapers.

Sadly, there could be a way further to fall for NZ proportional
representation yet. Influential Aoraki Green members - when presented
with a clear and explicit representative choice in the same context
recently - mirroring the present situation in national politics, a clear
choice between "more democracy" and "less democracy" - chose "less
democracy". The lessons from the struggle for MMP have not been learned,
putting the democratic reform process, in total, at unacknowledged risk.
Much more work to do yet..

>> Abuses of authority to shut down dissent. But worse, much worse.
>>
>> As stated - no idea. No economic analysis, nor proposals to put forward
>> for meeting any necessary growth, at all. No wind power; no power.
>>
>> vi) Corporatisation of (local) government is the greatest of all current
>> political challenges, and smacks heavily of ominous decades.
>>
>> Bulk public-private and overseas investment most likely, unless halted.
>>
>>  - That'll be the effect of "tax cuts": privatised health and schooling,
>> bigger costs to households. Serfs have always had it hardest. Eating is
>> steadily becoming harder, with [water] consumption shifting thus [towards
private control].
>>
>>>>> The Mar 6 minutes:
>>>>>
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/8B9D7D0C-5E83-4683-93FF-D5C3B5CC8707/0/Cnclagenda060308.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> "Full details of the [RGG] proposal are included in the agenda paper.
>>>>> This information will be included in Appendix 7 of the Draft Annual Plan
>>>>> (the material arrived too late for it to be included in the version
distributed with this
>>>>> agenda - a copy of Appendix 7 will be provided at the meeting)."
>>>>>
>>>>> That meeting ran from 1.55pm to 2.38 pm since Councillors had to catch a
>>>>> bus [to Clandeboye dairy factory]. So since they only got the info at the
meeting I don't see how they
>>>>> could have had time to do much but trust before voting. They also had
>>>>> to  discuss within that time the Triennial Agrreement which had been
>>>>> discussed by the Mayoral Forum and that references to the Local
>>>>> Government Act and the Resource Management Act had been removed from it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> From The ECAN Draft plan p115 about the projects guided by the RGG:
>>>>
>>>> "2.2.2 Environmental considerations
>>>>
>>>> The assessment of the proposal did not highlight any major environmental
>>>> considerations. The selected transformational projects may have both
>>>> positive or negative environmental effects."
>> Regards, Rik
[1] Vestigial feudalism. The predominant examples being institutional
and fundamentalist monotheist religion ("god" ideology and creation
myth). These culturally distinct blockages to peace and free thought
work away quietly within societies (sometimes), but officiate order in
the most regressive way, until philosophically resolved. Ripples spread
out from that mystifying "faith" base, throughout our lives, preventing
us from solving a whole range of other problems, because alternative
concepts and voice are actively (pseudo-passively) denied. No peaceful
and progressive methodology is available within such archaic frameworks,
and this introduces science as higher "faith" too - the science of
realising democracy.

Tempus fugit,

From: Rik Tindall Date: Sep 07 01:26 UTC Short link

Rik Tindall wrote:
> Hello CPIF, and thanks Blair, Natalie, Brian, Paul, Kerry, and Andrew,
> for keeping critical thinking alive of late.
>
also thanks to recent poster Trevor.

> See August 28th's ECan agenda papers..
> Not successful.. was my second attempt to have Energy Policy 3 -
> "possible changes to give effect to proposed National Policy Statement"
> (NPS) - put back into the draft CRPS: "Having particular regard to the
> relative reversibility of adverse environmental effects associated with
> renewable energy generation infrastructure", and "Enabling
> identification of renewable electricity generation possibilities". It
> failed this way:
> (..where are 'the greens' on Council?).. no discussion of it at
> all had taken place in RPC. Now Cr Neill was preventing any discussion
> of renewable energy at Council too.. Why
> should wind energy planning for Canterbury be lost to the CRPS, with
> process as bad as this towards single site protection and unsustainable
> energy generation?
>
> Much more work to do yet..
>

The practical, positive, and principled way of saving specific high
value ridgelines (such as Mount Cass - ecological etc) is always going
to be to put up a better alternative. Throwing the baby out with the
bathwater viz "renewable energy generation" like this - without due
democratic process - is simply backward. The whole methodology is wrong,
and reminds us why Aotearoa-NZ is in such great need of a vibrant Green
movement that drives political renewal.

Whereas green conservatism has absorbed too much of what is bad from
Social Democracy, leading to infection with similar sub-democratic
methods and outcomes as noted above, there is a purposive way forward
for our environmentally beleaguered country. It starts with recognising
off-green conservatism as - like the nationalist and social democratic
phases which preceded it - being historically redundant and less than
helpful for today and to the future. Here is some of the policy New
Zealand most urgently needs:

*The transition to renewables*

The Green Party will:

    * Require energy retailers to buy or generate a proportion of their
      sales from renewable resources.
    * Help district and regional councils plan for wind farm sites.
    * Support a programme to install solar water heating panels on
      government and private buildings.
    * Investigate the potential of woody biomass, biofuels, and energy
      from waves, tides and currents.

http://new.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/energy

Add to the topic Regoonal Government Group clarification needed. [?]

You cannot post because you are not logged in. If you are a member Canterbury Public Issues Forum, login to post to this topic. Otherwise sign up, become a member of Canterbury Public Issues Forum, and post to this topic.

Need help? Please contact technical support. To support your forum, please donate. Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.