by Roger Handford
Predictable — entirely predictable, the outcome of the forestry/slash issue.
At each step, the debate has moved further away from a sensible response and plan of action on a matter crucial for the future of this district. Make no mistake, this has become a struggle for power
and not what is best for the people.
Even before Hale and Gabrielle, it was obvious various groups were pushing for more say and control in local affairs. Despite a recent “patch-up” in relations between the District Council and certain groups, these intentions for a greater controlling “sharing” role are clear.
The wider public ought to be concerned, as this threatens the proper operation of democracy.
Some of those making waves are self-chosen, small groups and do not represent the general public. Like it or not, our council is the one democratically elected body that has the legislative power to make decisions on behalf of residents — no one else.
The inquiry into the land use/forestry/slash issue ran headlong into the local assortment of power-seekers, with their widely differing agendas.
The discord, disagreement and lack of unity has reached a disturbing level.
It is obvious the business of repair and recovery should have been dealt with as a separate matter of priority, and longer-term policy on land use required much deeper investigation.
Major shortcomings include an apparent lack of scientific and technical input — of which there is a monumental amount available.
Secondly, consultation has been selective, in a very short time frame, with the general public largely left out.
Third, the wider economic and demographic implications of major changes to policy and land use seem to have been ignored in a “damn the torpedoes” rush to be seen doing something.
The implications are widespread and alarming.
The announced plan is extremely short on detail. Large sums of money are being mentioned but there is no indication that this is a properly co-ordinated five, 10 or even 50-year plan.
With the present outcome, I cannot trust that council and community leaders are capable of directing a massive change of direction.
Consider families’ employment and income, the future of business large and small, the huge investment in the port, in machinery and other infrastructure, let alone people.
Without doubt there will be a huge impact on rates, even with the Government’s large financial input. How much should people pay the costs now, or spread the equity of benefit into debt for the future? Whatever path is taken, there will be major social effects.
For instance, a change to indigenous forests is a long-term, hundred-year notion. You cannot stop any sector in its tracks overnight — the consequences for those who live and work here would be terrible.
An excellent Country Calendar programme has just screened in which Māori landowners explain the heartache they had with planting pine trees. It is the only way they can gain income for future change.
And, it should be understood that any major change of land-use policy affects property rights, and would be opposed. Ill-considered decisions on land use would be suicidal — does anyone seriously want this to become a ghost district?
The region must have income and an economy, and it deserves better consideration of such complex issues. Currently no one is satisfied with the mishandling of the situation.
It is not any of the various trusts and interest groups, the forestry industry, farmers, council or government that should be calling the shots on our region’s future. All residents should be involved, and given the right to choose the path ahead — at the very least, any major change should face a referendum. The consequences of getting it wrong would be devastating.
