ECan chair undecided as election looms
Craig Pauling. Photo: David Hill / North Canterbury News
The chair of Canterbury's regional council is undecided about his future, as the local election looms.
Environment Canterbury chairperson Craig Pauling said he is contemplating a tilt at Parliament next year or stepping back from politics.
There has been speculation Mr Pauling could run for the Green Party in the Banks Peninsula electorate in next year's general election.
But he admits he still has unfinished business around the council table.
''There are things I want to do, so I'm still weighing it all up.
''Becoming an MP is certainly one of the options and I have talked about going to Parliament, but I haven't made my mind up.
''The chair role is an awesome honour. It has been rewarding and it has its challenges too.''
Mr Pauling has served two terms on the council.
He was elected chairperson in October, following Peter Scott's resignation the previous month, having served as deputy chair and acting chair.
The pair had contested the role in October 2022, with Mr Scott's name being drawn out of a container after an eight-eight split in the vote.
Nominations for election candidates open on July 1 and close on August 1, ahead of the October elections, so he doesn't have much time if he wants a seat at the council table.
Mr Pauling said if he was to stand for Parliament next year, the selection process would likely begin towards the end of this year.
A third option is to step away from politics and go back to his passion for environmental planning and policy making.
''There is always heaps to do, so it is about making the decision which is right for me and my family.''
Mr Pauling is of Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Mutunga and European descent.
He has whakapapa to Taumutu, Rāpaki and Ngāi Tūāhuriri.
■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
15 hours ago
- Newsroom
Anne Salmond: Victim of the Day
Over the past week, something remarkable has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand has fronted an online campaign of harassment of scholars who have shared their views about his Regulatory Standards Bill, naming each of them as a 'Victim of the Day.' Each scholar has been accused of 'Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome,' a description borrowed from Donald Trump's followers, who accuse his critics of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The portraits of each scholar are placed on David Seymour's Facebook page under this banner, and labelled 'Victim of the Day,' with online responses invited. The use of the term 'Victim of the Day' is, at best, careless. In the United States at present, political violence is escalating, with senators and their families being physically assaulted, even shot and killed. This has been associated with online incitements against individuals. No one in New Zealand, least of all the Deputy Prime Minister, can be unaware of these developments. In the United States, too, direct attacks by the Trump administration on universities, university scholars and their students have escalated from attacks on individual academics to attempts to take direct political control of what is taught on university campuses, by whom, and to whom, backed by the deployment of armed force including police and ICE agents. When universities such as Harvard have resisted these attempts, they have been punished by defunding their research and threats by the Trump administration to their right to admit international students. These and other attacks are happening to universities and other scientific institutions across the United States. At a time like this, it is extraordinary that a Deputy Prime Minister here should initiate an online campaign of intimidation against university scholars, using Trumpian rhetoric and tactics to harass them for exercising their academic freedom. In the United States, as in New Zealand, the independence of universities and academic freedom are designed as checks and balances on executive power, with the rule of law and the freedom of the press. All of these freedoms are being assailed in the United States at present. In New Zealand, the concept of academic freedom is specifically enshrined in legislation. Section 161 of the Education Amendment Act 1990 states: '161 Academic Freedom 1. It is declared to be the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to institutions that academic freedom and the autonomy of institutions are to be preserved and enhanced.' This requires that academics are free to offer commentaries within their fields of expertise without direct intimidation and harassment by politicians. The Act goes on to state: '2. For the purposes of this section, academic freedom, in relation to an institution, means – a. the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions.' Without this kind of freedom, new ideas and discoveries are unlikely to emerge. In academic inquiry, they must be rigorously tested against the evidence, including robust exchanges and peer review. For this to work well, the debate has to be reasoned and civil. Academic freedom is a very old doctrine, designed to protect universities from those who seek to control research and teaching to advance particular political agendas, as in the United States at present. Such ambitions are typical of totalitarian, autocratic regimes, with the USSR and South Africa under apartheid as previous examples. This can come from any political direction. In New Zealand, for instance, the Education Act 1989 was drafted in response to an attempt by the Fourth Labour Government to take control over 'what was taught, by whom and to whom' in New Zealand universities. That effort was vigorously resisted, and as a result the Education Act was passed and enshrined academic freedom in our legislation, along with a section that requires universities to 'act as critic and conscience of society.' That, I think, is exactly what the 'Victims of the Day' were doing when they were attacked by the Deputy Prime Minister. From an array of different disciplinary perspectives, they were analysing and discussing the Regulatory Standards Bill as contributions to public debate. In many ways, the campaign launched and fronted by the Deputy Prime Minister is lame, even laughable. At the same time, it is an abuse of high office. For the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to deploy Trumpian rhetoric to single out individual scholars as 'Victims of the Day' is deplorable, given the requirements of the Education Act. It is also troubling, given its direct links with the political assault on universities that is happening in the United States. Worse still, this is a senior politician who has vigorously argued for freedom of speech in universities. Above all, every New Zealand citizen has the right to speak their minds about matters such as the Regulatory Standards Bill without being personally intimidated by politicians. If scholars whose academic freedom is legally protected under the Education Act can be singled out in this way, the freedom of speech of all New Zealanders is at risk. In New Zealand, the Cabinet manual requires ministers to 'behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional.' This 'Victim of the Day' campaign does not match this description. It is unethical, unprofessional and potentially dangerous to those targeted. Debate is fine, online incitements are not. Ultimately, all ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour. As one of David Seymour's 'Victims of the Day,' I ask that Christopher Luxon upholds the Cabinet manual, and requires the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise to those he has targeted and harmed in this despicable campaign. I am formally lodging a complaint with the Cabinet Office, and look forward to its response.
Otago Daily Times
16 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Govt planning rules could 'override the community'
New planning rules proposed by the Government could override community aspirations, says a Canterbury council boss. Hurunui District Council chief executive Hamish Dobbie said he struggles to see how a proposal to stop councils defining rural-urban boundaries would work. ''If they override something in the planning document, they are not overriding the council - they are overriding the community," he said. Resource Management Act Reform Minister Chris Bishop announced proposed changes last week which he said will stop councils from stalling housing developments. ''We have had decades of local councils trying to make housing someone else's problem, and we have a planning system that lets them get away with it,'' Bishop said at the time. The Government proposal would stop councils from imposing rural-urban boundary lines in planning documents. A Rural Urban Boundary identifies land suitable for urban development, and areas to be kept rural. The proposal would give the Government the power remove provisions in council plans which impact on growth, and replacing development contributions with a development levy system, increased flexibility of targeted rates, and strengthening the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act. But Mr Dobbie said preparing a District Plan is ''a long and tortuous process'', as councils strive to find a balance between community aspirations, the need for growth, aspirations of developers and Government legislation. He said rural-urban boundary lines allowed councils to ensure development occurred where there is council infrastructure. Drawing rural-urban boundaries was integral to developing spatial plans, which identified areas for future housing growth and protected agricultural land. The proposal appeared to go against the national direction of developing regional plans, which included spatial planning, to replace district plans, he said. ''I don't know how you can identify areas for housing and agriculture without drawing lines on a map,'' Mr Dobbie said. ''But I might be about to learn something.'' The clause allowing the Government to override District Plan provisions which impacted on growth would be open to interpretation, he said. ''Imagine somebody wanted to build a nuclear power plant or a whale slaughtering station. ''It might be something the community would not want, but the Government would have the power to override it.'' Environment Canterbury chairperson Craig Pauling said the council is considering the proposals and will be making a formal submission. Parts of the region are facing significant population and demographic change, particularly Greater Christchurch, he said. ''We need to make sure we get the balance right, and we're actively safeguarding the environment, as well as social, and cultural values at the same time.'' Any decisions needed to consider the region's infrastructure capacity, housing availability, labour market, transport connectivity and natural hazards. Public consultation on the Going for Housing Growth discussion document closes on August 17. By David Hill, Local Democracy Reporter ■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
Scoop
18 hours ago
- Scoop
On Trump's Anti-Bomb Bombing Campaign
If the US really wanted to stop nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East, it would have long ago supported the moves to declare the region a nuclear weapon free zone, and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor it. Despite our anti-nuclear credentials, New Zealand has never supported the Middle East becoming a nuclear weapon free zone. At a press conference, I remember asking the then-PM Bill English why New Zealand didn't support the concept, and he answered that he could see what I was trying to get him to do i.e. to take sides against Israel, the region's only nuclear power. (Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is.) Basically, the West aims to ensure that Team Israel continues to be the neighbourhood's bully, thanks to its US backing, its overwhelming superiority in conventional arms and its nuclear arsenal, which reportedly consists of 90 nuclear warheads. we are seeing carnage in the Middle East because Iran has had a nuclear energy programme that might possibly, conceivably one day enable it to possess one such weapon – even though on all of the available US intelligence evidence, it had not done so, and was still engaged in talks to achieve trade gains for itself from not doing so. Moreover, if the Trump administration was ever serious about using peaceful means to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, it would have honoured the US side of the deal that the Obama administration signed with Iran back in 2015. At that time, Iran had agreed to limit nuclear enrichment at below weapons-grade levels, and to submit itself to regular IAEA monitoring, in return for the lifting of US/European trade sanctions. Instead, Donald Trump ripped up that deal, and confirmed the suspicions of the hardline clerics in Tehran that expecting the Americans to act in good faith was naive, and bound to end in disaster. Trump repeated this bad faith by engaging in diplomacy that - according to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – it had engaged in as a form of deliberate 'mis-direction' and cover for bombing raids that the US had been planning for months. Incidentally, this underlines how pathetic it is for New Zealand to be now calling for diplomacy to resolve this crisis. The whole process of diplomacy has been hopelessly degraded by America's repeated displays of bad faith. History on repeat To an eery degree, the US is repeating the precedents it set in Iraq, in 2003. After the 9/11 attack, US President George W. Bush became obsessed with causing regime change in Baghdad, bypassed the IAEA and waged a ruinous war - on the basis of a bogus existential threat that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Here we go again. After October 7.2023, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu became obsessed with causing regime change in Tehran, bypassed the IAEA, and is waging a ruinous war – on the basis of a bogus existential threat that Iran was about to possess a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. In reality, regime change in Iran has been front and central of Israel's plans for a very long time, whatever Iran tried to do to avert it. That is why, prior to its onslaught against Iran, Israel first chose to unilaterally attack and weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon. In both cases – and as in Gaza – Israel has had no compunction about bombing residential centres and inflicting large numbers of civilian casualties. Again, and as was also the case with the invasion of Iraq, delusionary beliefs have been expressed that the people of Iran will now rise up against an unpopular regime and embrace them as 'liberators.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Given Iran's proud history, the only thing capable of uniting the Iranian people behind the widely despised clerical regime would be an attack by a foreign invader. At this point, the situation in Iran looks a lot like the conditions in 1991, immediately after the First Gulf War. At that point in 1991, an oppressive regime in Baghdad had seen its military forces decimated by the US. Yet the West chose to leave Saddam Hussein in power for 13 more years, as a lesser threat to Western interests than a popular uprising that would be likely to put the oppressed Shia majority in power. For that reason, the West then sat by and watched while Saddam's forces slaughtered thousands of people who had risen up, in the mistaken belief that the West had wanted to see democracy triumph in Iraq. Similarly, the US may now be hoping that yesterday's bombing raids will be the sum total of its involvement, and that a weakened regime in Tehran can now be left to cling to power as best it can, within a ruined country. Yet if Israel does go ahead and bring about regime change, it will get bogged down – as it is already in Gaza – in administering the shattered remains of its field of 'victory.' Currently, Israel is getting away with committing genocide against the 2 million inhabitants of Gaza. But Iran is a country of 95 million people, and a genocide on that scale may be beyond even the Netanyahu government. If instead, Israel creates in Iran another failed state -another Libya of warring factions - then this will inevitably become a fertile recruiting ground for the likes of Islamic State. Except this time, Iran and Hezbollah will not be around to do the bulk of the fighting, and to help defeat the jihadis on the West's behalf. Israel may think regime change in Iran will solve its problems. But if it ' succeeds' in removing the clerical regime by military means, forces even more dangerous to its survival are likely to fill the vacuum. Neither the US or Israel appear to have a feasible end game in mind, for what they have started. Footnote One: Short term, what are Iran's options for retaliation? It could adopt Islamic State tactics and bring suicide raids and terrorism back to European cities, and to US diplomatic missions abroad. Iran's Doomsday option would be to mine the straits of Hormuz and bring international shipping trade – including global oil supplies – to a standstill. This would deal a serious blow to the world economy, and to Iran itself. One restraint against it doing so would be China, which is not only the sole remaining market for Iran's oil, but itself is not self-sufficient in oil. It has come to rely on the oil that it extorts at a cheap price from Iran. So under pressure from China, Iran might not play that final, desperate card in the straits of Hormuz. the thing. Iran may now have nothing left to lose. The Israeli bombing raids have targeted Iran's oil facilities. By doing so, Israel may have removed the key restraint against Iran taking destructive action to mine the sea lanes or sink its own ships to block the straits of Hormuz. After Iran's ability to pump and export its oil has been destroyed, there may now be no reason to abstain from shutting down the global economy. The Saudis? They have been doing nothing for Iran in its time of need. Nothing much for Iran to lose there, either. the very least, New Zealand should be taking a serious look at its oil supply chains, and at how long our current oil reserves might last. Footnote Two: As usual in any Middle East crisis, New Zealand's media coverage is being dominated by Israeli/US voices. To support the claim that Iran had posed an existential threat to Israel, the hoary old cliche has been repeated on RNZ that Iran does not recognise Israel's right to exist. For the record, this is an age-old argument about legitimacy, not about a current existential threat. When there is talk about a 'right to exist' what Iran and other regional powers are refusing to endorse is the legitimacy of Israel's seizure of Palestinian land, its forced displacement of Palestinian people, and the ongoing Israeli settlement encroachment onto Palestinian land that Israel illegally occupies in violation of UN resolutions. For exactly the same reasons – i.e. a refusal to put a stamp of legitimacy on the historical wrongs done to Palestinians - Saudi Arabia also does not recognise Israel's 'right to exist.' Yet Israel isn't bombing Riyadh. Instead, it is doing its best to normalise diplomatic relations with the Saudis. This diplomatic engagement has been sabotaged by Israel's ongoing aggressions in Gaza, in Lebanon and now, in Iran. Lets be clear. On the evidence, the expansionist power that is actively undermining the cause of peace, stability and diplomacy across the Middle East is Israel, not Iran. Bombardier Blues
