Singing salmon and other fishy tales
3rd April 2010

I am charmed by the Californian Indian tribe, the Winnemem, that journeyed to the Rakaia River to entice their salmon home with song and chant. If you missed this tale don’t worry, it will reappear shortly as an art house movie, a story of loss and renewal with achingly beautiful cinematography of moccasins and feathered headdresses and big skies over Rakaia.

It is easy to deride the Winnemem for having a childlike grip on reality. Local salmon possess no collective memory of their Californian origin and are unlikely to be charmed by music. But at the heart of this tale is a search for identity. The Winnemem’s pilgrimage sits alongside the journeys of young kiwis to Gallipoli or, aptly, the iconic status Maori give to the foreshore and seabed.

Another tale this week is the government’s appointment of commissioners to run Environment Canterbury. There is something fishy about this story too. Sacking a democratically elected body is not without precedent – Labour did it to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board – but to enshrine the decision in legislation passed under urgency is suspicious. Something more is happening here than meets the eye.

The assertion of the environment minister, Nick Smith, that the public has lost confidence in ECan is too glib. Cantabrians who consider the scope of ECan’s work will be well satisfied with the progress made to improve air quality, manage waste water, provide public transport and promote environmental education.

ECan’s downfall has been its failure to resolve the water debate. Management of water in Canterbury has not been as broken as Mr Smith and others have been asserting in recent days, but clearly it is the cause of growing frustration.

The issue boils down to a conflict between developers and conservers, those who want to use more water, mainly for farming, and those who want more of it to remain in our lakes and rivers. ECan’s board reflected both interests in about equal measure, a frustrating situation but one that is entirely appropriate if you believe in democratic process.

Water is a fundamental resource for all of us and the big question hanging over this week’s events is whether the new commission will fairly represent all views.

One cause for doubt is the now-famous letter from the region’s mayors which forms the basis of the minister’s argument about public loss of confidence. Who authorised this letter? Was it debated in council before signing? Whose view does it represent?

These questions must be answered to allay a strong suspicion that the letter merely reflected the views of the mayors. Their position is vulnerable because the letter appears to be a Trojan horse for the government, albeit a flimsy Trojan horse for there is so much in this week’s events to indicate that the real drivers are corporate farmers and other development interests. Organisations supporting the conservation side of the debate clearly think so. They have been quick to raise concerns about the decision, while development interests are either supportive or unusually silent.

Conservers of water have reason for concern. The legislation enabling ECan’s board to be replaced by a commission also suspends the normal process of hearing water consents before a tribunal and the environment court. The immediate removal of the Hurunui River consents from this process is a strong indication of how the government wants this to play.

Nick Smith tells us the commissioners will be well qualified to sort out the problems and, anyway, all decisions are finally his to make. If that is so desirable why do we have an environment court? It may be convenient to replace public process with backroom deals and ministerial edicts, but it will not serve our interests.

We must wait at least three years before we can elect representatives to run ECan again. That’s a convenient length of time to get our water resources sorted out – or sewn up. Rakaia salmon might do well to heed the Winnemem’s invitation and get out while they still have a river to swim in.