Councillors fail GMO test

Environment Southland councillors submit to National Environmental Standard


BRITTANY PICKETT

Last updated 05:00, August 13 2015
Environment Southland will make a submission on a government proposal to create a nationally consistent approach to managing plantation forestry, but agreeing on the wording was not smooth sailing.

Councillors debated an amendment to its submission on the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry at a council meeting on Wednesday.

The proposed NES would replace regional and district councils' existing district and regional plan rules for managing plantation forestry, creating a nationally consistent approach.

The submission outlines Environment Southland's concerns that the national environmental standard would have a huge impact on the rules the council has in place to manage forestry in Southland and says implementation of the standard could affect the management of regionally specific issues, such as implementing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the potential loss of further biodiversity values.

However, councillor Robert Guyton was concerned the council was ignoring an important part of the national environmental standard.

The proposal includes the permitted planting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

READ MORE: Guidelines an attack on democracy - councillor

Policy and Planning manager Anita Dawe said the council did not have a say on whether GMOs could be planted either way because it was not allowed for in the regional policy statement.

Dawe believed land use restrictions came under the jurisdiction of district councils.

Councillor Neville Cook questioned Guyton's need for an amendment.

"How would we know if such material would be brought in? Are we going to have border security? I don't think it is enforceable on a regional level."

Most councillors agreed it should remain a central government decision.

Councillors Jan Riddell and Guyton both proposed amendments to the submission, asking for a statement about the concerns of the council about GMO planting being a permitted activity.

It was time the council had an opinion on such matters, Riddell said.

"I think that it is about time that this council took a lead on this in the community and formed an opinion on GMO products."

Both amendments were scrapped, with only three council members voting for the amendments to be added.

Following the meeting, Guyton said he was very disappointed the council failed to even try to retain the powers it had to act on behalf of Southlanders.

He believed the council should shoulder the responsibility for deciding on local issues and not "fob" it off to government, he said.

"The majority of the councillors today showed they were unwilling to represent the views of Southland people on genetic engineering and instead preferred to let the government make the decision about whether Southland should lose its GMO-free status."

Timms on agenda

Southland Times journalist Evan Harding rang me yesterday for comment about where the council was with their 'chairman' issue. I was happy to bring him up to speed with developments, believing that it's important that the public 'gets a look in' at what councillors are doing, and knowing that many of my fellow councillors are very reluctant to speak with 'the media'. In response, he wrote the following article for today's ST front page.

The fate of beleaguered Environment Southland chairwoman Ali Timms could be decided at an extraordinary meeting of the council on January 24.

Ms Timms was last month outed for making a hoax phone call to a Cue television talkback show.

Pretending to be a struggling mother of two called Ruby whose partner had been laid off at Tiwai, she repeatedly grilled Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt during the live television show about the city council's funding of the Auckland-to-Bluff yacht race.

When confronted about the hoax call, she told The Southland Times it was a practical joke.

Her actions were widely condemned by Environment Southland and Invercargill city councillors. Ms Timms subsequently took six weeks' paid leave until her future as chairwoman was decided.

Acting Environment Southland chairman Nicol Horrell yesterday said the January 24 meeting was to discuss the Environment Southland leadership.

He intended to move a motion of confidence in Ms Timms to enable councillors to express their views and take a vote.

If the majority of councillors voted for the motion, Ms Timms would remain as chairwoman; but if they voted against it another meeting would have to be held in 14 days' time and the vote would be put again, he said.

When asked why a motion of confidence in Ms Timms would be put and not one of no confidence, Mr Horrell said it would be improper for him as acting chairman to move a vote of no confidence.

A vote of confidence would have the same effect, he said.

Environment Southland councillor Robert Guyton said yesterday a vote of confidence was an inappropriate vehicle for the council to express its disapproval of Ms Timms' actions.

Legal advice suggested a vote of confidence had never been used in local body politics in New Zealand and the usual process was to move a vote of no confidence, he said.

Mr Guyton said he would listen to the views of the councillors around the table before deciding which way to vote, "but at this stage I feel there needs to be a change".

He believes Ms Timms should have taken the opportunity to stand down when she was "encouraged to do the honourable thing" by councillors at a meeting last month to discuss her actions.

She refused to stand down, Mr Guyton said, and it was her idea to take six weeks' leave.

"I don't think her position is tenable following her public dishonesty and I think she has jeopardised the relationship between the council and other [Southland] councils, particularly the Invercargill City Council."



Her dishonesty had also jeopardised the relationship between Environment Southland and the public, he said.

Mr Guyton said he would not be going for the chairmanship if Ms Timms was sacked, but he believed several councillors could fill the role very well, including Jan Riddell, "who enjoys excellent relationships with all of the agencies around Southland and is entirely trustworthy".

It was too early to say whether Ms Timms had the numbers to retain her position, Mr Guyton said.

Environment Southland councillor Ross Cockburn, who said last month that Ms Timms remained an excellent chairwoman, yesterday declined to say which way he would vote at the meeting.

The Southland Times ran an informal online poll last month asking readers whether Ms Timms should remain chairwoman of Environment Southland, with 59 voting yes and 237 voting no.

Ms Timms could not be contacted yesterday.

evan.harding@stl.co.nz

- © Fairfax NZ News

Confidence or no-confidence

Following Ms Timms unacceptable-to-the-council behaviour on Cue TV, where she impersonated a struggling young mum named 'Ruby' and denied the obvious deception when pressed by Invercargill mayor, Tim Shadbolt, the council has resolved to meet in January to deal with the question of her suitability as chairman of the council. It seemed obvious to me that any vote taken at that meeting would be one of no-confidence in the chairman, as a result of her behaviour, providing an opportunity for those who feel she should go to vote that way, and those who want her to stay to vote against the motion, but no, it turns out that the Acting Chairman, Nichol Horrell has proposed a vote of confidence in Ms Timms! I've always thought such a vote was taken when a council was looking to praise and reward its chair or mayor, for a job especially well done, a kind of official 'pat on the back'. Clearly that's not what should be happening here, if I am right in my interpretation. Still, we shall see. Legal advice has been sought and that should clarify the correctness or otherwise of Mr Horrell's move.

*Up-date:
The legal advice was returned this afternoon and they made this point:

" We have never come across a vote of confidence in the context of local government previously, so cannot comment on what it typically means in local government."

That tells me the proposal for a 'vote of confidence' is unprecedented, unusual and untested in local government. Why on earth would we use it then?