The Press

Secrecy surrounds investigat­ion into regional council chairperso­n

The Canterbury regional council is coy about an investigat­ion into its elected chairperso­n, who has stepped aside from the top job but is still involved in council decision-making.

On May 2, Environmen­t Canterbury (ECan) said it would appoint an “independen­t external reviewer” to investigat­e matters regarding Peter Scott and a South Canterbury farm.

Scott had told a talkback radio host he was “operating illegally” on the farm while awaiting resource consent from his own council – an admission meant to illustrate that ECan was not always the cause of resource consent delays.

His consent had been delayed for six years due to legal uncertaint­ies involving a small area of Crown land within the farm. He has since applied for a licence to occupy the Crown land, and walked back his comments.

Nearly a month on, that investigat­ion is shrouded in secrecy. ECan has declined to provide basic details, including the terms of reference, what is being investigat­ed, the identity of the external reviewer, or even if the investigat­ion has begun.

Meanwhile, Scott has continued participat­ing in council decisions, despite apparent confusion about the extent to which he can be involved.

Last week, during councillor­s’ deliberati­ons on the Long Term Plan (LTP), Scott questioned whether he should “participat­e at all” before recusing himself from decisions involving environmen­tal regulation. He changed his mind the next day, telling the council he was confident that none of the matters for discussion overlapped with his situation.

The council is broadly split along rural and urban lines, meaning some votes are finely balanced. Scott’s vote in the LTP deliberati­ons was therefore important.

Scott was also one of two councillor­s delivering ECan’s submission to the Timaru District Council’s LTP hearings this week.

It caps off a messy period at the council where the atmosphere had been “chaotic”, one source said.

The possible outcomes of the investigat­ion – if it indeed exists – vary.

If the investigat­ion concerns potential breaches of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and Scott is found to have broken the law, he could be subject to enforcemen­t action by his own council.

He could also face a no confidence vote from other councillor­s, or a lighter form of censure allowing him to remain in the role.

An ‘urgent’ request

While his future as chairperso­n remains uncertain, more details have emerged about a parallel controvers­y.

In April, Scott sent a letter to Minister for the Environmen­t Penny Simmonds and Minister for RMA Reform Chris Bishop requesting an “urgent” law change that would essentiall­y bypass a High Court ruling.

The ruling found that ECan had unlawfully granted a discharge consent to an irrigation scheme.

The decision – which ECan is appealing – could make it difficult to sign off activities that don’t immediatel­y improve freshwater quality. It is thus a challenge to ECan’s water quality strategy, which pushes for gradual improvemen­ts.

The letter's existence was first revealed in a media release published on ECan’s website. When The Press asked for a copy, ECan declined, stating that it was “subject to review”. The reference to the letter was then removed from the website without explanatio­n.

Later inquiries by The Press using official informatio­n laws found ECan staff learned that the letter had been sent outside usual processes, and had not been signed off by councillor­s.

This was, the council later said, because Bishop wanted to “move at pace”, and there wasn’t enough time to seek input from councillor­s.

Staff were told not to publicise the letter’s existence until it was put before the council, which happened shortly after Scott stepped aside as chairperso­n.

In the letter, Scott highlighte­d the potential economic consequenc­es of the court ruling, and said a law change was necessary to “avoid significan­t issues for the economy, for both New Zealand and Canterbury”.

He said hundreds of consents could be affected, as well as significan­t projects such as the Akaroa wastewater scheme, council stormwater applicatio­ns, and discharge consents for other irrigation schemes.

“Constraini­ng the ability of regional councils to drive environmen­tal outcomes over time has potentiall­y serious repercussi­ons for New Zealand’s economy and both our urban and rural communitie­s,” Scott wrote.

“It means a range of activities cannot be consented, or have their consents renewed, unless they can show immediate improvemen­ts that will ensure no ongoing significan­t adverse effects on aquatic life. This will be extremely challengin­g.”

At the meeting, left-leaning councillor­s expressed frustratio­n both about the letter being sent without review, and its focus on economic issues.

“There is really very little acknowledg­ement of the importance of our environmen­t in this letter,” Councillor Vicky Southworth said.

“It’s very much about the impact on the economy.”

“I will simply say I’m disappoint­ed the letter went out,” Councillor Greg Byrnes said. Acting chairperso­n Craig Pauling added that he had “serious reservatio­ns” about the letter.

By a narrow majority, councillor­s voted to send an additional letter, clarifying the earlier letter without formally withdrawin­g it. This has yet to be publicly released.

The first bill involving RMA reform has since been submitted to Parliament, and does not include the changes Scott requested.