Amalgamation slaging match

Published `15 Nov 2014

The slanging match over debt is sidetracking the amalgamation debate. In the end debt will have very little impact on whether or not Hawke’s Bay will be better off with a single council. If amalgamation turns out to be wrong there will be no chance of going back to what we have now.

Is surely the supporters who must prove their case because it is they who are agitating for change and their motives are questionable. Some may be bitter because they have already been rejected as representatives by the community.  Others are members of the wealthy and influential provincial elite who crave more power than they already have, while others appear to be seeking a way to continue holding office without seeming like stale bread.

Where is the proof amalgamation is going to make us more efficient?  Centres with comparable populations to the proposed Hawke’s Bay Super Council such as Hamilton, Tauranga, and Dunedin have debt levels that are multiples of our combined debt, plus their rates are higher. 

The Winder report claimed at least 100 jobs could be eliminated with one council but similar staff reduction claims were made about Auckland, though these seem to have been conveniently forgotten now our largest city employs over 1000 more staff than before amalgamation, while salary levels have exploded with over 1500 staff earning more than $100 000. If this was the private sector such expectations would be realised, but in Local Government such savings are unlikely. For example we could see five chief executives being replaced with one earning double the present highest salary, plus four additional lieutenants each earning at least as much as the people they are displacing. 

Cost reductions in other areas such as roads, and the three waters are also unlikely because most of the spending in these areas by the existing councils is awarded by competitive tender meaning there is little if any opportunity for further cost reductions. 

Those claiming the Hawke’s Bay economy will perform better under one council need to provide evidence to support their position. Yes we have lost businesses and jobs. Yes our wages are low and unemployment high. But can those proposing amalgamation provide a single verifiable example of a business that has decided not to come here, or one that has left because of our Local Government structure?

The Local Government Commissions had a myopic view of the issue. Both Winder and the Commission seemed interested only in proving a predetermined outcome and in doing so completely ignored the concerns of the four councils opposing amalgamation. It is loss of control  over funding arrangements and spending priorities that that people are worried about not who actually does the work. The present structure actually has some advantages. We now have an element of competition( rare in local Government), and each area is able to concentrate on their strengths and needs. Perhaps it was this concentration of effort that made the difference in helping attract Kiwitbank to bring over 100 jobs to Hastings. 

The Local Government Commission and Winder could have looked at the possibility that poor quality investment decisions by our councils is a better explanation for Hawke’s Bay’s anaemic economic performance. The $18 million museum upgrade with $4 million annual running cost, plus the nearly $30 million( total cost to date) poured into Opera House are costly spend ups that have contributed very little to our economic performance. If we add the Art Deco Buses plus the cost of the proposed Civic Square upgrade it’s not difficult to tote up nearly $100 million of wasted opportunity. 

 

It’s actually possible many things could get worse with a single Council. We have only to look at Auckland to appreciate the sort of things that might happen here. The people who have been running our affairs for many years have the best chance getting elected to any amalgamated Council and If that happens why will the outcomes be any different?  

Hastings cavalier takeover attitude could also backfire. It will have a maximum of just one third of the representatives on both the Transition Board and the merged council and its representatives will easily be out voted by those whose concerns have until now been ignored.   

Amalgamation will be expensive and disruptive. We need to make sure it is worth it.