Bill Dalton

There are times when the role of a city councillor is so satisfying, such a pleasure, that some of us at least, would do it for nothing.

And there are times when being a councillor is so frustrating, so unpleasurable, that you wonder why you do it for the meagre stipend.

And I’ve experienced both those situations in the last week.

I don’t want to dwell on the negative but there are a small number of our citizens who believe that rules are made only for others. And there are those who forget that complaints can still be made in a civilized and decent manner, that disputes can often be settled with sane and reasoned discussion and that if all else fails, the fact that you have acted with dignity allows you to walk away with your head held high.

I have no doubt that my view is lost on some.

On a more positive note, I had two lovely experiences on the weekend I would not have had, had I not been a councillor.

On Saturday afternoon I attended a birthday celebration for the sports equipment that the Pirimai residents association have installed in Pirimai Park.

Obviously, as a councillor I get lobbied all the time by one group or another, to try and get the council to develop amenities in their suburb.

Sure the Pirimai people lobby too, but in the meantime they have got off their bums and done something for themselves. It was a great afternoon with music, dance, and activities for everyone – it was a real community occasion.

Well done all you Pirimai folk.

And on Saturday night I attended a farewell dinner for the 46 visitors from our sister city in Japan – Tomokomai. It was a great occasion, a simply beautiful meal, and new friendships were established and old ones cemented.

The Tomokomai folk had learnt Pokarekareana and sang it to us. It was one of those nights full of laughter, music and fellowship.

It is nights like that, and afternoons like Shirley and I enjoyed at Pirimai that make a councillor’s role a pleasant and satisfying one.

It didn’t take long did it!

The members of the new Auckland Super City Council haven’t even shuffled their feet under the table, and they are asking for more dough. They are saying that their job is very similar to that of an MP and they want comparable pay and conditions. Auckland City councillors receive a basic salary of $80,000p.a. and that will be considerably boosted by pay for responsibilities such as Chairs and hearings committees attended. I wouldn’t have thought that is too bad. MP’s have a base rate of $131,000p.a. And the councillors want it all laid on – they want offices in their wards, they want expenses for everything – frankly they want too much.

It seems that the concept of serving your community is fast being lost from local body politics. In days gone by, those who wanted a career in politics went into national politics and those who simply wanted to serve their community, went into local body politics. Now the line is blurred and many local body politicians regard their council stipend as their principal income. And the way meetings are now scheduled during the working day, it is difficult, indeed almost impossible for anyone holding down a full time job to become a city councillor. I think that’s a shame because it precludes a lot of very good people from offering to serve their community.

Those misguided individuals who make ridiculous claims about the savings that local amalgamation in Hawke’s Bay will bring should pay close attention to what is happening in Auckland because the claim by councillors is just the beginning. The chief executive will soon be saying that his job is so big he needs an enormous salary, he needs two deputies also on huge salaries, all line managers will say that they need assistant managers and so it goes on, right through the organisation.

The only argument for amalgamation of the Hawke’s Bay local authorities is the “single focus” argument. If the proponents of amalgamation stuck to reasoned arguments about how one voice promoting Hawke’s Bay in Wellington, throughout New Zealand and internationally, would benefit us all then they might gain some traction. Instead they wimp out from such a reasoned position and start rabbiting on about savings of amounts like $10 million. Just rubbish.

So those who are suggesting we rush headlong into a shotgun marriage here in the Bay, might like to consider giving it just a little time, so we can see how the Auckland experiment unfolds.

At the Triennial Meeting of the Napier City Council last Wednesday, Mayor Barbara Arnott made a strong call for changes to the way we elect the members of our council.

She has my 100% support on this matter.

As I have said so often, the half ward half at large system is an absolute nonsense. It came about because the majority wanted a simple first past the post system, a vociferous minority appealed against that sensible situation and a gutless decision was made to go half and half. It is a compromise that suits no-one and delivers nothing.

Look at the 2010 election. One quarter of our councillors were elected unopposed. The people of Taradale and Onekawa simply had no options. That’s 54% of the electorate that had no say in who was going to represent their ward. Does that suggest to you that the system works?

In the city-wide or at-large electorate 15 people stood for just 6 positions. Only one new member was elected and that was to replace a member who retired.

Some of those who missed out may well have had a reasonable chance in Taradale or Onekawa but they chose to stand city-wide. Why? I guess it is because they too felt they wanted a mandate from the whole city they wanted to represent. Or perhaps, it was a signal that they disagreed with the silly system we have had inflicted upon us.

Wards work when an electorate is geographically widespread. Napier is one of the most compact electorates in the country – you can drive from one side of it to the other in 10 minutes. And we all tend to be involved right across the city. I live in the Ahuriri ward, work in the Nelson Park ward, have a workshop in the Onekawa ward, shop and socialise in the Taradale ward. We are a small compact city.

And when a city councillor is elected, they are required by law to vote in a manner that benefits the whole city – even if that means that some feel it will disadvantage their own wards.

So in Napier, having wards is stupid and having a stupid half and half system is worse. Let’s get back to a system where we vote for the best 12 men or women to serve our city no matter where in the city they live.

It’s been an interesting week in local politics.

Firstly the Regional Council elected a new chair and deputy chair and as usual with the Regional Council, the process was not without controversy. The system, it seems to me, is almost guaranteed to start the new term with disharmony. Nine people are elected – they all believe they are capable of being the chair, they all believe they should be the chair and they would all like the very substantial salary that goes with the position. Naturally each councillor would vote for him or herself in any election so it’s a matter of convincing 4 others to support you. The whole process is bound to create stress and tension amongst and between councillors. Why is the system so different with the Regional Council than it is with the Hastings District or Napier City Councils? Why can’t we vote for the position of Chair of the Regional Council in exactly the same way as we vote for the local Mayors? It is my view that the electoral process in terms of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is flawed and is damaging to the harmonious team we want to work for the region.

But it’s all going to be ok because Lawrence is on the amalgamation trail again. The article in the press over the weekend was a good one and frankly I believe the discussion and debate is something we should be having. Interestingly enough, during the six or eight weeks we spent on the campaign here in Napier, the subject was hardly raised, and I think its fair to say, there was no enthusiasm shown by most Napier people for amalgamation.

One thing I was pleased to note – there was none of the dishonest drivel about savings of $5m or $10m in Saturday’s article. Those false claims are best left with those who made them whilst seeking re-election.

In the 3 years I have been on Council, I have worked very hard to encourage the various local councils to work co-operatively and collaboratively wherever possible. Once we have extracted all the efficiencies available with that process and we have aligned all our regulatory systems, I believe amalgamation should be considered. To implement the process suggested by Mayor Yule (and I do concede it is a discussion document), a something for everyone – keep them all happy plan, would be a disaster for Hawk’s Bay.

If you think I appear to be a little slow today – then you are right. Last night I attended the A & P Society Mercedes Benz Hawke’s Bay Wine Awards and it was a fantastic night – although I don’t handle the 1am mornings as well as I used to!

The night was hosted by Frankie Stevens and he was an inspired choice by the organisers. Ever the consummate professional, Frankie not only compered the show extremely well, he sang and danced with his backing dancers – he put on a great show.

The meals were magnificent and of course the wines were the very best that Hawke’s Bay produces – and that is as good a wine as you will get anywhere in the world.

The only disappointment for me was the casual way that some attendees were attired. The organisers had put an enormous amount of effort into the show and the invitations clearly stated that the theme was black and white and dress for men was black tie. That to me means a dinner suit and bow tie. There were those who turned up in open necked coloured shirts – they had made no effort. In my view they not only let themselves down, they insulted the organisers.

But it is great to see the whole province joining together to celebrate excellence.

On the council scene, we are still somewhat in limbo. Whilst we have had seminars and meetings, nothing much can be done until the new council is sworn in and that doesn’t happen until the third of November. Then we can make binding decisions. And there are a lot of decisions that need to be made this term and those decisions need to be followed up by actions.

We need to make a final decision on the Marineland site – that one to me is a no-brainer.

We need to make a final decision on the next step to be taken with regards to erosion at Westshore – that one is more difficult.

We need to make a decision on where we go with our leasehold land interests and I’ve got some pretty firm ideas on that one too.

So the 2010 – 2013 Napier City Council term is shaping up as one where some big decisions have to be made – and they will be!

Thank you to all those who voted in the local body elections – democracy needs you. And a very big thank you to those who voted me back on to the Napier City Council, I can assure you I won’t let you down. To those who didn’t vote for me – you can rest assured I will continue to do my best for the City and all its residents and that means you too.

The current Napier City Council has received a very strong mandate from the electorate, to get on with the projects currently underway or under discussion. With some projects, like sorting out the future of the Marineland site, the time for talking is over. One of the first jobs the incoming council must do, is to bring finality to the Marineland saga that has been dividing opinion in our city for far too long.

On the hustings, virtually every candidate acknowledged that we need to address the leasehold land issue in Napier. Despite this issue being extremely complex we need to address it so that the users of the land have some certainty in the future. We need to make firm and clear decisions surrounding leasehold land and stand by them in three years time.

We also heard much from candidates, about the need to get some economic growth into the city, however we didn’t hear many ideas on how that might be done. I can assure you I have some suggestions to offer and will be presenting them to council at the first opportunity.

The New Zealand economy has gone through the toughest two years most of us will ever know and frankly we are not out of the woods yet. The longer the government goes on borrowing to facilitate their spending program, the longer it will be before we all enjoy prosperous times again. And the Napier City Council has come through the last two years particularly well.

But it’s time to take the foot off the brake and start moving it towards the accelerator. The HB Museum and Art Gallery project will be a real boost to the local economy.

Hopefully the redevelopment of the Marineland site will get underway next year as well and there are other projects in the pipeline that will give an economic boost.

So it’s all go at the Napier City Council and I look forward to a very productive three years.

I thought we had reached the low point in the local body election campaign when Robin Gwynn stooped to scare tactics at the Grey Power meeting. Frankly I still can’t believe an obviously intelligent man stooped that low.

But then along came Denise Woodhams with her letter to the Hawke’s Bay Today. I don’t know what planet Ms Woodhams has been on for the last few years, but her comments in the paper suggest she hasn’t been on the same one as you and me. What unmitigated garbage.

To suggest dolphins are a possibility at Marineland is simply dishonest. For the benefit of Ms Woodhams, I will spell the situation out very clearly:

The Labour Government refused permission to import captive bred dolphins. The National Government has refused permission to import captive bred dolphins. All minor parties oppose the importation of captive bred dolphins. Captive bred dolphins are simply not an option any more than capturing dolphins in the wild is an option.

And do you know what. I think Ms Woodhams knows that. I think she knows that dolphins are not an option for the Marineland site. I think her campaign has failed to gain any traction and she has had one last gasp attempt to be noticed. Well I’m sorry Denise but any attention you have attracted will be for all the wrong reasons.

Good Councillors can come from all walks of life, can have different skills and levels of competency but the one thing they must have is integrity.

The Napier City Council has just released its accounts for the 2009/2010 year and those accounts reflect not only the good decision making that has taken place at Councillor level, but the excellent management practices that are in place in our fair city. Napier is well served by a large team who work very well together. The politicians and the officers have great respect for each other and all pull in the same direction for the good of the city.

As this is my last piece before the results of the elections are known, win or lose I would like to thank those who have supported my quest to continue to serve our city.

And again I would like to congratulate all those who both had the guts to stand, and were prepared to be honest. Well done – democracy needs participants.

Well – on Saturday week we will all know who is going to govern us – in a local body sense – for the next three years. It has been a stressful campaign and win or lose, all candidates will be pleased when it is all over.

In Napier there have been a number of issues that have come to the fore at every meeting. The biggie for many people is the future of the Marineland site. Some believe that erosion at Westshore is the number one issue and some seem hell bent on putting in a swimming pool that will add 15 to 20% to your rates.

Virtually all candidates have said we need economic growth in Hawke’s Bay. Virtually all those candidates never proffered one suggestion as to how that growth could be achieved. One of the reasons candidates have been reluctant to disclose their ideas for the future of our City and province is that if they announce their ideas at a meeting on Tuesday, another candidate, drawn to speak before them on Thursday will suddenly discover the same idea. It happened to me on several occasions during this campaign. For that reason I’m keeping my powder dry on economic growth. If re-elected, I will be delighted to float a strong suggestion as to how we can get Hawke’s Bay moving again. If I am not re-elected I will be suggesting the same quite radical scheme because I believe it is good for the Bay. I just don’t want it to become an election issue and therefore discussed on an emotional level rather than on a good sound business basis.

One thing I have found quite amazing is that this year, people have been slow to vote.

Only about half of those we expect to vote have voted so far. I thought it would be much more than that. And the question is why are people slow to vote this year? Is it because they simply haven’t got around to it? Is it because they can’t be bothered voting at all? Is it because they are taking the whole matter so seriously, that they are leaving their decision until they have got every piece of information available?

Whatever the reason for the delay in voting, I just hope that people do record their vote before October the 9th. In my view, you not only have the right to vote, you have a responsibility to do so.

Yesterday we had our last meet the candidates meeting. I think most candidates feel they have done all they can now and are happy to taper off their campaigns.

But one candidate, Robin Gwynn was a shocker. He led off with some rant against water meters. That clearly came from his tired old memory banks because in my 3 years on council, I have never heard water meters mentioned. Because he was talking to Grey Power, people generally on fixed incomes, he was prepared to lower himself to using scare tactics. By inference he suggested that water meters were a possibility and that he would oppose them. Well I can tell you, so would every current councillor.

He then went on to discuss his solution to the bus terminal problem we have in Napier. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he has been badly informed. Frankly the rubbish he spouted would suggest he again was inclined to be economical with the truth. The information he gave to the meeting was simply not correct.

The format for these meetings is appalling. The problem I have right now is that I can’t think of a better option. Any format that allows a candidate to simply tell untruths and not be challenged is unsatisfactory. However when you get 20 candidates at a meeting, how do you allow challenges?

Imagine the schemozzle if 60 people in the audience wanted to take 20 people to task for what they had said. The meetings would last all night or day – or perhaps both.

One thing is for sure. My trigger finger was itching to have a go at Robin Gwynn yesterday and there was no opportunity for me to challenge him.

And I would have taken one or two others to task as well and I dare say there would have been those who would have challenged me. I can assure you I would have welcomed the challenge.

So if you can think of a better format for local body election meetings, let me know. Who knows, in three years the pain might have worn off and I might go again.

The election campaign this year is basically all over bar the shouting. Those who are going to bother to vote (about 40% of those who could) will likely have done so, if only to get the papers off the end of the kitchen bench.

I would like to congratulate all candidates for throwing their hats into the ring. It takes guts to go through the whole campaign thing, knowing that at the end of the process you might just have a real feeling of rejection. And it is expensive too.

Of course, as usual, some candidates have intentionally tried to mislead the voters but I have a much higher opinion of the average voter than they seem to have. The voters won’t be fooled. Some candidates are advocating building a 50 metre swimming pool in Napier when they know, or if they don’t they should do, that such a project is prohibitively expensive. It sounds a highly desirable project on the hustings but I am sure the huge impact on rates would be most unpalatable.

There are those who would have us go for the Rolls Royce option on the Marineland site despite the fact that it made no economic sense to do so. The Napier City Council has spent an enormous amount of time and money on looking at viable possibilities for the Marineland site and we are close to making a decision.

Of greater concern to me, is when a candidate who should know better, goes public with a view which is clearly unsupported by facts. Robin Gwynn’s letter to the HB Today on Saturday which refers to the Napier City Councils failure to use the example of the Palmerston North transport depot to progress a similar depot here, is simply electioneering garbage. And Robin knows it.

The fact is we have had countless conversations and meetings with the management of the Inter City Bus operators. The Mayor even visited their offices in Auckland. They are simply not interested in contributing to a dedicated passenger depot in Napier. And we have also discussed the Palmerston North depot as we looked at our options.

Despite all the difficulties, the Napier City Council has worked hard to reach a compromise with the bus company. The busses now stop in Dalton Street where there is cover, a phone on the corner and toilets nearby.

Robin’s letter in the paper on Saturday was typically lightweight electioneering. Even he, I am sure, will be pleased that it’s nearly all over.