Is bigger better?

The proposal for a Hawke's Bay super city is not new. In 1999 a referendum revealed significant support by the people of Hastings, and an almost identical level of rejection by those in Napier. Will it be different this time?

Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule has put forward his proposal promising to contest the issue at next years local government elections. This is an interesting approach because it implies political choice, rather than letting the people decide.

Before the people can decide, the benefits must be spelt out in detail. While duplication or triplication of premises and staff suggest tantalizing savings, it may not be possible to realise these? The plan as outlined by Lawrence Yule with two minor Mayors and a super Mayor plus two tiers of attendant Councillors and staff seems to negate the reason for merging in the first place.

He talks of an overall 5% savings. Since annual rate increases are of this order (though often hidden by borrowing) the gains seems rather meager. And if there are savings how might ratepayers benefit? Will ratepayers see a reduction in their costs. As a resident of the Hawke's Bay County Council prior to it being taken over by Hastings in 1989 I recall no rate reductions or improvements in services though some might argue no change is an improvement on what might have happened.

Only a full merger, or a compete take over of one city by the other will achieve any great savings, but to do so means there will be losers because jobs will be lost and in shifting to one location some people will experience significant inconvenience plus additional traveling costs getting to their local council. For instance car parking is already a problem and significant cost in Napier.

Any investigation must look at all options. Significant savings with much less disruption appear possible if Napier and Hastings simply absorbed the Regional Council. Where there is duplication there is opportunity for rationalisation and joint operations as already happens with the landfill and the airport.

And if there are savings how long will it be before they are swallowed up by the relentless mushrooming Local Government staff numbers? Perhaps we should look at a single city with a similar population to our two cities such as Dunedin to see if more, better, or lower cost services are provided.

It will cost millions to investigate and implement. The people should be told what these costs are up front before a cent is spent. Certainly Hastings does have a great record of managing major projects. We have only to look at Splash Planet, the Opera House, and the Sports Park to see how far astray the financial projections might be.

The two council system seems to have at least one advantage. People are able to make comparisons between the two organisations for services, efficiency and value for money.

It is claimed one city will have a stronger voice with Government. As President of Local Government New Zealand the Hastings Mayor is in constant contact with Government and it seems not to have bought any greater voice for the city. Lack of meaningful progress on the airport development is the ultimate proof of that.

Perhaps my greatest concern is it does not address the real problems facing Hawke's Bay. We have nearly the lowest wages in the country, high unemployment low population growth, lack of job growth, and plummeting visitor numbers. How will these things change with an amalgamation.

Certainly we need to get our act together. Is a super city a better way to the future?