Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

If We Want To Improve NZ’s Freshwater Quality, First We Need To Improve The Quality Of Our Democracy

Nicolas Pirsoul, University of Auckland and Maria Armoudian, University of Auckland


Since the fatal Havelock North campylobacter outbreak in 2016, freshwater quality has rightfully been a major political issue in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Pipes bursting in Wellington, lead contamination in Otago and concerns about tolerable levels of nitrates in the country’s drinking water are all signs of a system in crisis.

Ultimately, our use of and access to freshwater resources come down to how they are managed. To that end, the government is working on big changes to freshwater governance structures.

The so-called Three Waters initiative includes a controversial proposal to shift control of water services from local authorities to publicly owned multi-regional agencies.

But while local control has clearly not been ideal, water policies developed by central government have also been inadequate. As was recently reported, the working group studying nitrates in freshwater met only twice in 18 months and was recently disbanded.

The Ministry for Primary Industries opposed the introduction of stricter nitrogen levels in rivers because of the potential economic impact on agriculture and horticulture.

Given access to clean water is a fundamental human right and the majority of New Zealanders would benefit from cleaner water, we have to ask: how democratic are New Zealand’s water policies?

The democratic deficit

While the primary industry sector undeniably plays a key role in New Zealand’s economy (5-7% of GDP for agriculture), its true contribution might look quite different if environmental impacts – and freshwater quality in particular – were taken into account.

Currently, New Zealand taxpayers shoulder the heavy cost of lax oversight and regulation of freshwater. While the public is aware of the issue of freshwater quality, arguably there is less awareness of the democratic deficit contributing to the problem.






Read more:
New Zealand government ignores expert advice in its plan to improve water quality in rivers and lakes





In a liberal representative democracy such as New Zealand’s, political decisions result from elections. The three-yearly electoral cycle, however, tends to encourage symbolic politics geared towards winning votes rather than generating long-term solutions to complex problems like freshwater quality.

In 2017, for example, Labour campaigned on cleaning up our waterways. Its eventual plan, “Essential Freshwater: Healthy Water, Fairly Allocated”, appeared promising but is ambiguous and short on detail or substance. Some of the promised reforms have since been delayed.

Elections won’t help

With no real mechanism for public participation beyond the next general election or non-binding public consultation and submission processes, New Zealanders are left largely powerless.

A vote for the National opposition would only exacerbate the problem, given the party has said Labour’s proposed freshwater standards would be “gone by lunchtime” if it was elected.

So far, the Three Waters proposal to centralise responsibility for water services seems unlikely to increase opportunities for public participation in policy formation.

For all these reasons, we argue that by first improving our democratic system we can then begin to solve environmental problems such as freshwater quality.


Fresh water requires fresh ideas

Effective alternatives already exist but these require challenging the assumption that democracy is synonymous with elections.

The first step would be to reinvigorate democracy at the local level. Although many important environmental decisions are made locally, public participation in local body elections remains very low in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Perceived council failures, infighting and financial strife have eroded public confidence and led to calls to radically reform the current system.






Read more:
Report shows New Zealand's 'fragmented' environmental research funding doesn't match most urgent needs





Enabling the public to play a key role in a real, participatory process could change this. It might also counter the tendency for local government to be captured by vocal, self-selecting, minority interest groups.

One way of achieving that is through a system known as “sortition”. This involves selecting representative assemblies by lottery instead of election or appointment. This model has two main goals: genuine representation and informed public input.

Assemblies are randomly selected from the population and then filtered to create a
microcosm of the community in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, location, socio-economic status and even attitudinal bias.

The case for ‘sortition’

Unlike referendums, sortition emphasises quality over quantity. The selected citizens deliberate with experts to reach informed conclusions. The outcome of this deliberative process is then used to guide policy-making.

These deliberative assemblies can be temporary and focused on specific issues, or they can be embedded as permanent mechanisms within the institutions of a territorial or state authority. Remuneration is sometimes offered as an incentive to participate.






Read more:
Drinking water study raises health concerns for New Zealanders





Sortition is becoming increasingly popular around the world as a potential remedy for “democratic fatigue” and populist politics. In Utrecht in the Netherlands, for example, sortition was used to design the city’s energy plan.

Reinvigorating local democracy with sortition-based citizen assemblies might not only prevent policy capture by vested interests but also help keep central government accountable.

Improved local democracy would increase public trust in political institutions in general. But it might also lead to more practical, equitable solutions to problems that directly affect citizens — such as the quality of their water.The Conversation

Nicolas Pirsoul, Policy Analyst and Research Assistant, University of Auckland and Maria Armoudian, Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, University of Auckland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 


Julian Assange: A Thousand Days In Belmarsh
Julian Assange has now been in the maximum-security facilities of Belmarsh prison for over 1,000 days. On the occasion of his 1,000th day of imprisonment, campaigners, supporters and kindred spirits gathered to show their support, indignation and solidarity at this political detention most foul... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: The Mauling Of Novak Djokovic
Rarely can the treatment of a grand sporting figure by officialdom have caused such consternation. Novak Djokovic, the tennis World Number One, has always had a tendency to get under skin and constitution, creating a large following of admirers and detractors. But his current treatment by Australian authorities, and his subsequent detention as an unlawful arrival despite being granted a visa to participate in the Australian Open, had the hallmarks of oppression and incompetent vulgarity... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Voices Of Concern: Aussies For Assange’s Return

With Julian Assange now fighting the next stage of efforts to extradite him to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 of which are based on the brutal, archaic Espionage Act, some Australian politicians have found their voice. It might be said that a few have even found their conscience... More>>



Forbidden Parties: Boris Johnson’s Law On Illegal Covid Gatherings

It was meant to be time to reflect. The eager arms of a new pandemic were enfolding a society with asphyxiating, lethal effect. Public health authorities advocated various measures: social distancing, limited contact between family and friends, limited mobility. No grand booze-ups. No large parties. No bonking, except within dispensations of intimacy and various “bubble” arrangements. Certainly, no orgies... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Question Time Is Anything But
The focus placed on the first couple of Question Time exchanges between the new leader of the National Party and the Prime Minister will have seemed excessive to many but the most seasoned Parliamentary observers. Most people, especially those outside the Wellington beltway, imagine Question Time is exactly what it sounds... More>>



Gasbagging In Glasgow: COP26 And Phasing Down Coal

Words can provide sharp traps, fettering language and caging definitions. They can also speak to freedom of action and permissiveness. At COP26, that permissiveness was all the more present in the haggling ahead of what would become the Glasgow Climate Pact... More>>