Bill Dalton

Last week the Hon Dr. Nick Smith gave his annual speech to the Nelson Rotary Club.

Dr. Smith is, of course, the Minister for Local Government and some of the figures he quoted were extremely interesting and some were simply alarming.

The 78 councils in New Zealand are responsible for $100 billion worth of public assets, employ 23,000 people, spend $7.5 billion of public money each year and every day make thousands of regulatory decisions that impact on the lives of all New Zealanders.

Interesting stuff.

But alarmingly, over the last decade average rates across the country have risen by 6.8% per annum – more than twice the rate of inflation. Rates have gone up more than any other component of the consumer price index. Equally alarming is the fact that council debt has quadrupled over the same period.

These are really concerning figures and yet the local press shows no interest in taking up the issue. Why don’t we see articles that include these figures? Why don’t we see articles that show how our local councils have performed over the last decade against each other and against the national average? Surely at a time when our councils are considering a study on the future economic performance of the Bay, this sort of information would be of interest to readers.

Frankly as a city councilor I don’t know the figures and I would like to.

It is interesting to note that whilst rates have risen 6.8% per annum over the last decade, over the previous decade the increase was only 3.9%. Clearly after the loony leftie Local Body Minister Sandra Lee, dumped a whole lot more duties and responsibilities on councils in 2002, costs began to escalate. That would suggest to me that whilst some councils became more efficient and absorbed many of the additional costs, others increased their indebtedness and have increased rates to service the debt.

I challenge the local press to seek the relevant information from the various councils and to publish an article showing how they have performed over the last decade in terms of rates and debt against each other and the national figures supplied by Dr. Smith.

I for one would be interested in seeing the figures,

Recently I have been taken to task by several people who for some reason believe I am against an economic study being undertaken in Hawkes Bay. So I’ve gone out of my way to make it clear I support an economic study being done.

Then just this morning, some fellow rang me up and started abusing me because we were about to, in his words, squander ratepayers money on such a study. You just can’t win!

The one sensible thing this fellow said to me was that the study is going to be expensive. And of course it may well be that the study is just the start of ratepayer expenditure on a process that hopefully will bring some closure to the divisive amalgamation debate – for the time being at least. Following the study it is quite likely we will have to undertake an electoral petition and following that it is probable that we will go to a referendum. The all-up cost will be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The first and very important step will be to set the terms of reference for the study. There are some in our community who have declared themselves “Key Stakeholders” and believe they should have a big say in setting the terms of reference. Well the truth is, when hundreds of thousands of dollars of ratepayers money is being spent, that every ratepayer is a key stakeholder. None more key that the next. And all stakeholders can’t be invited to set the terms of reference. We all know that in that situation it would be impossible to reach consensus.

So how should we handle such a task? The answer is found when we look at the very basics of the democratic system.

In a democracy we elect people to act in our best interests. Those people take an oath that they will act in the best interests of the community from which they were elected. If the are found not to be serving their community in an appropriate manner, then they will be tossed out of office at the next election. Simple democracy.

When we look at these people who now believe they are “Key Stakeholders”, somehow more important then other ratepayers, we find that they have never stood before the ratepayers and offered to serve. There was an election just one year ago. I didn’t see their names on the candidate list.

So we elect representatives to act on our behalf in a democracy. We don’t appoint ourselves to a position above others.

Three or four weeks ago I commented on an advertisement that appeared in the Napier Mail. I stated the ad was full of misinformation, untruths and outright lies. Despite the howls of protest from the writer of this advertisement, I stick by my claims. Let me give you an example of the misinformation that was included in that advertisement. Let me Quote:

“Every year one student understands that one never talks only of debt but also of assets and the cost of servicing that debt. In the case of Napier the cost of servicing their debt is approximately 14% of rates whereas in the case of Hastings it is 9%”.

So this boldly and personally promoted advertisement proclaimed that Napier spends 14% of its rate-take on interest. The simple truth is that in the 2007/2008 year debt servicing peaked at 8.7% of rates. Since then through good governance and management that figure has dropped to 4.8%. So not 14% as the advertiser in the Napier Mail proclaimed but 4.8% and that includes servicing all external and internal debt.

I will leave it to you to decide who is telling the truth and who was prepared to spread total rubbish in an attempt to prop up a shaky campaign.

And it’s interesting to note that Hastings doesn’t charge interest on a large portion of its internal debt – a practice I would have thought unwise at best.

The Napier City council has now received the results of a survey it commissioned on amalgamation. Thinking people will not be surprised by the results.

Less than a quarter of those surveyed in Napier expressed an interest in amalgamating with other councils and amongst those who do support amalgamation, less than half wanted to amalgamate with Hastings. 60% of those polled do not want amalgamation at all.

Interestingly enough there were several comments made to the survey callers that Napier residents want Napier to develop closer co-operation with other councils. They want us to work together, to combine services and resources but each area should be governed by its own council.

So there seems to be some acceptance that we are on the right track. That travelling on a journey of shared services and co-operation is the correct way forward and only when that journey is completed should we look at what the next direction might be.

It’s a very interesting time to be a local body politician. Clearly there are some very contentious issues being debated in our community at the moment and it is intriguing to see how our politicians are behaving.

Many are happy just to take the collective approach. They argue the toss within their respective councils and then simply support the consensus view. They are not interested in expanding their view to enable the ratepayers to make better sense of the stand they have taken and they are certainly not interested in taking anyone to task who has introduced misinformation into the debate.

If political longevity is their aim, these politicians are wise. As soon as a politician states a firm view on a matter, he or she alienates all of those who hold any view which is different. If a politician states that the town hall should be painted blue, then he or she not only alienates those who think it should be painted green but also those who think it should be painted any other colour than blue. Of course the clever politician would come out very firmly with the view that the town hall needs painting.

It is inevitable that, as a politician, if you make a decision on an issue and state the fact publicly, you will not only attract cheap shots from biased political commentators, you will encourage all those who have any different opinion to have a go at you. In that sense I can understand the local body politicians who decide to keep their heads below the parapets.

But that’s not my style.

I believe local body politicians have a responsibility to tell their ratepayers where they stand on issues and equally important why they stand there. And they have a further responsibility, when misinformation is tossed into the debate, to take issue with that.

I accept that path may not be the most prudent path for career politicians, but for me it is the only way.

As long as I’m accepting a salary from the ratepayers of Napier I will listen to them, form an opinion and state my view on any matter. Ratepayers will then know my views and can make what they consider to be the appropriate decision at the next election. That is, of course, if I succumb to my masochistic tendencies and stand again.

I just think it is a real shame that others who have strong opinions on local issues, believe it is appropriate to by-pass the democratic process altogether.

Congratulations to all those Hastings District Councillors who voted for Lawrence Yule’s plan to help his district to recover from a clearly difficult financial position. If I had been a HDC councilor I too would have voted for the plan.

When a local body councilor is sworn in they take an oath that commits them to act in the best interests of their ratepayers. Clearly, it is in the very best interests of the Hastings District Council ratepayers to swallow up Napier, a well run, low debt, efficient organization. The councilors were duty bound to vote for the “Yule Plan”.

So what happens now? Napier councilors are certainly not going to change their minds. In a world where there are only winners and losers, if Hastings ratepayers are on to a winner, and they clearly are, then Napier ratepayers must be the losers. Support from the other local bodies in the Bay is not guaranteed. So Lawrence will get his survey done, perhaps privately funded by either the anonymous group who funded his mayoral campaign or the secret group who are funding the push for amalgamation. The next step will be a petition to seek a referendum and then we will have a referendum. All of this will be extremely expensive and disruptive and if Napier rejects the idea of amalgamation, we are back where we started. Except of course, Lawrence will have single handedly set the relationship between our twin cities back decades.

Lawrence is quick to say “But all I want is a study undertaken” and even he knows that is rubbish. Lawrence stood for the HDC mayoralty in 2010 on a platform of amalgamation – not having a study done. Every political trick he pulls out of his hat is for one purpose only – to achieve amalgamation. And what Lawrence wants, in many ways we already have. He wants Hawkes Bay to speak with one voice. In every area where it is important we already do. He suggests a Napier board – we already have one, it’s called the Napier City Council. He suggests a Hastings board – one already exists, it’s called the Hastings District Council. And then he wants one over-arching council. I thought that’s where the Regional Council sat.

Of course there are those who would say that the Napier City Councillors should stop just looking in their own back yard. That they should take a broader view of what is good for the whole of Hawkes Bay. And to them I ask the same question that Lawrence has been unable to answer during his whole campaign. What could an amalgamated governance structure do that the present governance structure can not? All the talk about savings in staff costs or politician costs are simply wishful thinking. There are plenty of case studies that show there will be none. In fact most show increased costs.

At a time when at long last, the Hawkes Bay economy is showing signs of recovery, this whole amalgamation debate is diverting attention away from the things that are really important. And even worse. Lawrence’s whole campaign is based on historical figures showing, he seems to believe, that Hawkes Bay is an appallingly backward place. I am sure that those with a positive attitude who are trying to encourage new people and businesses to the Bay must cringe every time he trots out the same old tired figures. And despite being asked time and time again, he can not tell us how amalgamation is going to improve one of those statistics.

So my call to Lawrence is this: Let’s celebrate the fact that our twin cities are unique in New Zealand. Let’s work together to ensure all our ratepayers get the very best value for their rates. Let’s promote the region through our regional business and tourism organizations. And let’s put our people and the wellbeing of the region ahead of personal agendas.

I had a call from an old mate of mine on Sunday Morning – one Dudley Payne. Now Dudley is no spring chicken and he’s one of those guys who has always put his heart and soul into everything he’s done. He’s an ex dairy farmer, an ex motelier, an ex aviator, an ex veteran car restorer and owner, and he has retained an interest in all of those fields. And despite having slowed up physically in the years following his 80th birthday, his mind is as sharp as a tack. So Dudley rang on Sunday morning and said “stand by – I’m coming to pick you up and I’m going to show you how to sort this city out”. That’s not exactly what he said because Dudley’s language can get somewhat colourful when he’s in full flight – but you get the drift.

Dudley arrived dead on time and off we went. Many of his suggestions were great in theory but in practice simply could not work. Like many people, Dudley was not aware of the amount of land in and around Napier that has been set aside for the settlement of Maori land claims. I am sure that once these claims are settled we will be able to move forward because the Maori owners will want to get a return on their assets once they are in their hands. But in the mean time, until clear ownership is achieved, planning for the use of this land is difficult if not impossible.

But we drove to Ahuriri to look at the rail yards and to the site where Dudley believes they should be shifted to. We drove to Park Island, to the Airport, to Westshore – we covered a lot of ground. And all the time the ideas were simply bubbling out of my old mate Dudley. We discussed parking in the city, the Marine Parade, Hawkes Bay governance – you name it and we discussed it. In fact it would be fair to say that given an unlimited budget, we could have cured all the city’s ills.

Isn’t it encouraging to know that we have still got citizens in our midst who have maintained their excitement for, and commitment to, the future of our city. So many these days either don’t care or if they do care, they are not prepared to make the effort to contribute. Others of course have become disenchanted with the Bay because Lawrence Yule constantly tells them how bad it is – and that’s sad.

Hawkes Bay could do with a whole lot more Dudley Paynes. People who are committed to the future well-being of the province rather than to building an empire within it.

I was shopping in Hastings the other day and the shopkeeper jokingly suggested that I was brave crossing the river – that Lawrence Yule might put his hit-squad onto me. I was delighted to tell him that just the previous evening Lawrence and I had sat in my workshop over a cold beer and had a good yarn about the whole situation. You see – we both want the same thing – the best outcome for Hawkes Bay. We just have different views on how to achieve that outcome.

The Deputy Chair of the Hawkes Bay Regional Council Ewan McGregor, in his recent newsletter, suggests that Hawkes Bay people may well be tired of the debate on the pros and cons of amalgamation.

For once Ewan has got something right.

Unlike some others, my position on amalgamation has not changed since the debate began. I have constantly said that at some time in the future it might make sense to have one governance team in Hawkes Bay. But throwing everyone together in a rushed shotgun marriage would be ridiculously disruptive and expensive. It simply makes no sense. I have long advocated an aggressive move to align all regulatory processes and contract dates to enable the region to extract all the efficiencies possible out of the system. Once all systems and processes are aligned we can then ask these simple questions: Now we are working so closely together does it make sense to complete the process and fully amalgamate? Or have we extracted all the efficiencies possible and there is no need to alter the governance system that gives our two quite different cities a great degree of self determination?

It is my view that trying to thrust Napier, Hastings and the Regional Council together without doing the preparatory work first would be an absolute disaster for Hawkes Bay. In fact it is interesting to hear some local politicians saying they have been advocating amalgamation for many years. Ewan, for example, claims he has been on the case for 10 years. And what have these people been doing about it? Nothing. What effort have they put into ensuring that the various local bodies they serve have aligned regulatory processes and shared services so that a discussion could take place about what the next sensible move might be? None.

Many of the comments supporting amalgamation centre on the need for “One Voice for the Bay”. Frankly, many of those making that call are either ignorant of the facts or are being disingenuous. Much progress has been made in this area and where it counts we have one voice for Hawkes Bay. We have got rid of the hopelessly inefficient tourism and economic development organization and we now have a separate Hawkes Bay Tourism organization and a Hawkes Bay Business organization. We have a Hawkes Bay Chamber of Commerce, a Regional Transport group, a Heretaunga Plains Urban Design group, a joint waste minimization group and the HB Airport Company that both the Napier and Hastings councils are involved in. And of course the Omarunui Landfill – that is the perfect example of how the region can work together. And the list goes on. And when did you last drink Hastings or Napier wine. You, of course proudly drink Hawkes Bay wines. Where it matters we already speak with one voice.

Enormous progress has been made in the last three or four years towards a more co-operative and collaborative environment for Local Body Hawkes Bay but there is still much to be done. Only when that work is done should we even think about what the next step might be.

Councils around the country have all been hearing submissions to their annual plans. And sure you get the odd single issue nutters but largely I really appreciate those who take the time to make their views known to their councillors.

The Art Deco Trust made a submission to the Napier City Council and it struck a real chord with me because it was suggesting the sort of things I have been saying for years. Amongst other things, the Art Deco Trust wants to liven the town up – to get music into the streets – to get our vintage cars onto the streets.

Napier has the highest number of vintage cars per head of population of anywhere in New Zealand and we need them to be seen. We need to capitalise on this strength. We have also got a good number of accomplished entertainers who I am sure, if organised properly, would be happy to entertain on our streets. And what’s wrong with recorded music! Why aren’t our stores lifting their image by adding music to their marketing toolbag.

We used to send a bunch of people to London each year to try and encourage poms to come here to live. And we got a few too, and the ones who have stayed are good citizens. But they are not the entrepreneurial type – they are not going to start some new business that will employ 50 people.

For my dough the trips to London were a waste of time.

We have recently launched a campaign to encourage Australians to visit Napier. We are told that this has been a great success based on the number of hits on the website. Well I can tell you I have travelled the world over several times on the internet and have never visited or spent a cent in 99% of the places. Ask our accommodation suppliers how successful the campaign has been.

It is my view that we should be spending our promotional dollars right here in Napier. Let’s brighten the place up. Let’s get some vibrancy into the city. Let’s paint the Soundshell nice bright colours, get our beautiful vintage cars into the streets, get appropriate music creating a festive atmosphere. Let’s make the Marine Parade into a place where families want to visit.

If these media advertising campaigns have a measure of success, what do tourists find when they get here. A sleepy little village where the long term locals have their fun behind closed doors.

What we want is, visitors to Napier going home and telling their friends,” if you are going to New Zealand you must go to Napier it’s such a fun city.” The word will spread.

So I applaud the Art Deco Trust, not only for what they are doing but also for their vision for Napier.

Simply put, I think Napier residents have gone to sleep and we need to put some life back into the city we love.

The National Government has delivered its budget and frankly it was a bit ho-hum. I know it is a fine juggling act, trying to bring government spending under control without bringing the economy to a screaming halt, but in my mind, the government did not go far enough. More drastic action should have been taken.

There are a couple of things that really concern me. The growth forecasts of 3 to 4% per annum are pretty optimistic in a world economy that is still tottering on the brink of disaster. If those levels of growth can not be achieved, then all the budget forecasts go out the window.

Much is being made of the fact that the great hope is, the economy will be back in surplus by 2014 rather than 2015. What is not clearly pointed out is that until we do achieve a financial surplus situation, the government will have to continue to borrow enormous amounts of money so that they can continue to run the country. And when that surplus is achieved, be it in 2014 or 2015 or some other point in time, the repayment process can begin. By that time the government (that’s you and me of course) will be so deep in debt that the repayment period will not be measured in years, but in generations.

So naturally, in election year, the government is trying to paint a positive picture of their budget but in truth it is a sorry tale of New Zealand’s financial position. National appears to be on the right track but I believe they could have done much more and frankly Labours comments on the budget and their own pronouncements since, display an ineptness which, if they were in power, would be scary.

It is interesting to see Mayor Yule has launched his takeover bid for Napier. My wife pointed out his facebook campaign that his very slick, professional PR people have produced. I wonder who is paying them?

I believe there has been a slight shift of opinion on amalgamation in Napier but the majority of Napier ratepayers would prefer to retain their independence and identity although Lawrence’s takeover team have been doing covert surveys and their results must have given them encouragement.

Lawrence calls his programme a restructuring one. Most talk of amalgamation. The proposal produced by Lawrence is clearly a simple takeover of Napier by Hastings. Before any binding decision is sought from Napier ratepayers, we need to ensure that those ratepayers are acquainted with all the facts. Napier’s debt level compared to Hastings. What the representative numbers will look like after the takeover. What, if any savings this takeover will produce. Those sorts of things.

Only then can the citizens of Napier make an informed decision – one that will be good for Napier and indeed the whole region.

UPDATE: Since I prepared these notes, Lawrence has contacted me and suggested a chat – I’m all for that. But he has also suggested his plan is only a draft and could easily be changed – and that is my whole point. The ratepayers don’t know what they are supposed to be debating because the politicians are flying silly kites.

Let’s show the ratepayers some respect and get some facts together so the people have the chance to make a sensible informed decision.

I see in this morning’s Dominion that Lawrence Yule is pushing ahead with his plan to amalgamate all the Hawkes Bay councils. And I suppose he has to really because such a course of action was a major plank of his election campaign in 2010.

My very real hope is that we see more openness and honesty in the debate than we have seen in the past. Its seems every time an election is approaching some politicians who want to raise their profile, will trot out all sorts of unsubstantiated figures regarding the savings possible under amalgamation. Neil Kirton is a prime example. Every three years he comes out with some enormous figure, supposedly the savings available through amalgamation and then when asked to justify that figure, goes totally silent.

It is my view that any argument that supports amalgamation based solely on financial benefits is a false one. There could be a very strong argument put that amalgamation will cost local ratepayers. The real argument to support amalgamation should focus on the benefits to the region of speaking with one voice – of having one focus – of being able to put greater pressure on in Wellington. The financial saving argument is, in my opinion, a dishonest one and particularly so if huge savings figures are being bandied around with absolutely no credible supporting information.

From a Napier point of view – and let’s face it I’m paid by the ratepayers of Napier to represent them – I am far from convinced that amalgamation would be to our benefit.

The Napier City Council has been extremely conservatively managed financially over recent years – some would say too conservatively – and as a result has a very low level of debt. This contrasts with Hastings.

Napier has extensive land holdings which provide it with substantial lease income and also capital income as land is developed and sold off for housing. Hastings has not.

And at the end of the day Napier and Hastings are very different communities. Hastings with its focus on serving the rural sector and housing big box retailers and Napier with its focus on commerce, tourism, boutique retailing and the café culture.

Whatever happens at an administrative level it is essential that the individual communities within Hawkes Bay retain their character and uniqueness.