The Hastings District Council recently voted seven votes to six in favour of supporting a Hawke’s Bay Regional Council proposal to substantially increase funding for tourism promotion. This was part of the HDC submission to the Regional Councils draft Long Term Plan (LTP). The proposal will result in $900 000 of increased expenditure after 3 years of which about half or $450 000 annually could be charged to Hastings ratepayers. This is equivalent to about a 0.75 % average increase in Hastings rates, though the billing will come from the HBRC not the HDC.
That 6 councillors voted against shows real concern about the idea. Had just one councillor voted otherwise the outcome would have been different and this could have put pressure on the Regional Council and Hawke’s Bay Tourism for greater disclosure and more meaningful dialogue, though it would not necessarily have prevented the increase because that decision will be made by the Regional Council.
HDC has a duty of care to ensure ratepayers money is spent wisely. Clearly six councillors were not convinced this had happened. The concern was about insufficient consultation, lack of supporting information, and also failure to have a meaningful in-house discussion between Hastings councillors and staff. Whilst Hawke’s Bay Tourism did make a presentation some weeks ago, there had been no warning, no agenda, and no details. It must be remembered that this is not like purchases from the supermarket where there is a choice to buy or not to buy. When councils decide to do something ratepayers must pay whether they agree or not.
The lack of meaningful discussion by HDC councillors is a real concern because suddenly we were told the submission had already been made without councillors having been involved. The choice was to withdraw it, make clear it was a staff not councillor submission, or accept the submission without a closer examination. Effectively Councillors were being asked to support something they had had no input into. The decision to uphold the submission was made by a majority of just one. Its probably worth mentioning that of the seven councillors supporting the proposal most were those representing or with close connections to the rural wards, whereas those who opposed were mainly from the urban wards, where of course most of the funding burden will fall.
The importance of tourism to the local economy was not being questioned, however any proposal to double funding to the tune of nearly a million dollars a year needs close examination. The increased funding presumably means advertising though there have been no details, no in depth examination of the proposals by either HDC staff or councillors, no specifics on how the money is to be used, nor has there been any opportunity to examine the past claims and the resulting performance of Hawke’s Bay Tourism. Effectively the decision was made on the basis of spurious, unsubstantiated, generalised claims.
We were told there had not been time to consult meaningfully with councillors but I had been asking repeatedly when were were going to examine the request and was assured each time that it was “in hand”. To suddenly have the matter sprung on councillors “as done” is simply not acceptable.
I personally have concerns about the Regional Council ability to manage this activity. Historically the track record of tourism under Regional Council control has not been satisfactory. The Regional Council has no skin in the game as all publicly provided tourism facilities including the airport are owned by the Napier or Hastings councils. Nor do It see any relevant experience or expertise within Regional Councillors or Regional Council staff. It is not part of their core environmental responsibilities, but is the result of a historical inability of the Hastings and Napier Mayors and others to resolve priorities. As a result responsibility for governance and funding of tourism was handed over to the HBRC in a sort of cop-out.
I have recently written other “Talking Points” highlighting poor decision making by the Hastings District Council and I believe this is a further failure by the Council to act in the best interests of their ratepayers.
