Bill Dalton

In August 2009 the Mayor of the Hastings District, Lawrence Yule announced his plans for the future structure of Hawkes Bay. Late in 2010 he was re-elected to the position of Mayor following an anonymously funded campaign centered on his amalgamation stance.

Whoever is advising Mayor Yule is doing him no favours at all. The approach for the whole amalgamation campaign has been a corporate one. It’s very much the “I’m the boss and I might not always be right but I’m always the boss” type of approach. Any politician worth his salt knows that in a democracy, if you want to make major change you need to take the people with you. You need to convince the people that they are making a good decision.

Lawrence has failed to do that in every aspect of his amalgamation campaign.

The major fault in the Yule plan is the forced timetable which appears to fit more neatly with his personal political schedule than it does with the aspirations of the ratepayers of Hawkes Bay – Napier in particular.

If Lawrence had outlined his vision and set milestones to be achieved along the way he would have got far greater buy-in from Napier residents. He still could. But Lawrence seems to be reluctant to take some of those steps in case they in some way interfere with his stated goal of amalgamation.

Why isn’t there a plan that sets out a timeline for aligning all contract dates – for aligning all regularity functions, deciding what services it makes sense to share and setting up those shared services? All of that sort of thing.

If Lawrence got behind the work we are currently doing to make governance in Hawkes Bay more efficient, we would be making even greater headway.

Once all the milestones have been achieved we could then look at the most sensible next step. And at that stage we could ask these questions: Now that we are working so closely together does it make sense to move to full amalgamation? Or Now that we have extracted all the efficiencies that co-operation and shared services brings, are we better to leave the governance structure as it is?

So it’s not necessarily the final outcome I object to in terms of the amalgamation debate. At an appropriate time amalgamation may be the best way forward. But there is a lot of work that can and should be done first that will bring us many of the benefits of amalgamation without enormous cost and disruption.

I have to acknowledge that the Better Hawkes Bay campaign has been slick and clever. With the enormous cost involved it should be. However I still believe the campaign is disingenuous at best and at the worst, dishonest.

This campaign was promoted by those who founded/supported Lawrence Yule’s amalgamation campaign. The clever team at the core of this campaign knew they would need to represent large numbers of supporters to give them credibility so they launched the; We Want a Better Hawkes Bay. Do You? advertisements. Of course large numbers signed up. If I hadn’t been convinced that the underlying motive of the promoters was not being spelt out, I would have joined myself.

We all want a better performing Hawkes Bay!

Now of course, these fellows are starting to show their true colours. Telling elected members when the study should be done. Telling elected members what the terms of reference should be. And writing silly letters to the paper. (next time todays correspondent comes up on the letter writing roster, they would be advised, in their best interests, to by-pass him)

And todays advertisement leaves in no doubt what the intention of the core group is. They ask yet another question; Wouldn’t you want to see such a comprehensive study of Hawkes Bay’s performance, including governance, endorsed by our regions five councils?

Well the truth is that the five local councils have all agreed to that and these fellows know it. (whilst Napier has yet to formally confirm that fact because of the timing of meeting schedules, these fellows have been advised that we have agreed to the HBRC initiative). Like their headline question, they are asking a question they already know the answer to so that they look like they have achieved something when action is taken that agrees with their stand. They are clever these blokes!

The advertisement in this mornings HB Today asks if we want to raise incomes, attract visitors and new businesses. It asks if we want better delivery of programs to the elderly, those active in sport, arts and culture, builders, youth, the disadvantaged and vulnerable. They cover the field these fellows!

All good warm fuzzy stuff which everyone of us would say yes to.

What this core group is not honest enough to say is; We believe the way to achieve all these things is through amalgamation.

If they had the guts to come out and declare their hand openly, many would have more respect for them.

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.

The so called anti-greed rally which began in Wall Street, New York, has spread globally. The protest which is fuelled by extensive use of social media, is typical of this type of mass hysteria.

A small group of concerned citizens, in New York’s case they appear to be mainly broken down old hippies, begin a protest. They are then joined by all those who for whatever reason are against the system. In America the anti Afghanistan war people are out in force, the gay rights groups, the anti-Democrats, the anti-Republicans – you name the cause and they are there.

In Rome the protest seems to have been taken over by the anarchist movement with hooded and disguised louts roaming the streets smashing windows and setting cars on fire.

In Australia the anti-greed protesters have been joined by the supporters of Aboriginal rights and a whole bunch of other protest movements. New Zealand too has its copy-cat protests under way.

It is always the way. Start a protest or a campaign and everyone who feels wronged, disadvantaged, angry or in need of publicity will join you.

And yet interestingly enough, if the anti-greed protesters had kept their campaign free of all the hangers-on, they could have made a far stronger point. That’s difficult to do of course because there is always some group or individual who grasps the opportunity to self promote – but if they had kept their message simple and direct, they could have exposed all sorts of examples of greed within the financial sector in the United States. And let’s face it, there’s no shortage of those! They could have got public sympathy on their side. Instead they are denouncing all bankers and politicians and their campaign has lost all credibility. It is now just a rallying point for everyone with a burr under their saddle.

You really do have to wonder at the intelligence of some of these people. I saw one young fellow being interviewed in New York and he said that we need to get rid of all the politicians. It doesn’t matter whether they are Democrat or Republican, they all have got to go. How clever is that!

As is always the case, many who have joined the protest have not thought trough the implications of their actions. They see the protest as a vehicle for their frustrations but in many ways they are creating an environment which will result in far greater frustration in the future.

But that sure as hell won’t stop them!

The article on the front page of Monday’s Hawkes Bay Today still has me chuckling.

A couple of our sports administrators have decided that Cory Jane and Israel Dagg have a booze problem because they have spent time in Hawkes Bay. It must be a very contagious condition because Cory Jane wasn’t here for long.

These two young guys went out for a few beers three nights before a game. Israel Dagg was injured and wasn’t even in Saturdays side. We are told that Jane lit a cigarette. Frankly if he played that well on Saturday night after just one smoke on Wednesday, they should have tossed him a pack a day!

To suggest that, the fact that these two young fellows went out for a beer a few days before a game means that Hawkes Bay needs to take a look at itself is simply bizarre. It’s almost as silly as Lawrence Yule suggesting that the loss of 300 jobs at the Ovation meat plant in Central Hawkes Bay is somehow the result of the failure of our local bodies to amalgamate.

The simple truth is that young people need to behave like young people and they need to enjoy themselves. And there is nothing new in All Blacks sneaking out at night to enjoy themselves. My father used to tell me stories about the All Black Manager who had a drinking problem on the 1935-36 tour to Britain. Despite that he used to sit on the stairs of the teams hotel to ensure that all players were back within curfew. The players made sure the old bloke had plenty before they went out and they came home when they were ready and stepped over him, sound asleep on the stairs. I am sure that every All Black team could tell similar stories.

Of course these days the players are professionals and they should behave appropriately. But being professional doesn’t suddenly make young men older and wiser. So the All Black management team and the senior players need to look at how they can protect these players from themselves.

But to suggest that suddenly Hawkes Bay needs to look at itself could almost be described as a Yuleism!

Let’s not build these incidents into something they are clearly not. I see the owner of the bar that Dagg and Jane were in has already said that some of the stories that are swirling around are pure fiction.

Critics seem to concentrate on the fact that these fellows need to be punished and frankly that is a disappointing view indeed.

Go the All Blacks!

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.

If you’ve been in any doubt as to what sort of people are supporting the pro-amalgamation lobby’s expensive advertising campaign, have a look at John J Harrison’s advertorial in last weeks Napier Mail.
This appallingly crass attempt at self promotion was full of misinformation, untruths and outright lies. Harrisons “rich mans rant” did neither him nor is latest cause any credit.

The campaign appears to have attracted about 400 names. There is a small core who are disciples of the Yule plan (they may well have written it), a whole bunch of people who for some reason have their noses out of joint with the councils and of course the trendy bunch who see this as yet another game.

Personally I’m saddened – and I don’t use that term lightly – I am saddened by the conduct of the core members of this group. They have not done their homework, they have no idea of the progress that has been made by all of the councils over recent years towards working co-operatively together – they have chosen to try and do it their way without any knowledge of, or respect for, the good works done by many towards a more efficient Hawkes Bay.

The actions of this group have set the idea of true unity in Hawkes Bay back by decades. Their attitude of “we are not prepared to use the democratic process but will throw our money at this to tell you what’s going to happen”, has riled many in the community. It has taken us back to the Napier versus Hastings situation – a situation we left behind us years ago.

Frankly I stood for council with the stated intention of getting all the local councils working closer together in the interests of all of Hawkes Bay. I’m beginning to think I’ve wasted four years.

I can’t let today go by without paying a tribute to my old mate Charlie Black. Chas who turned 96 last Monday, died at his home yesterday. Charlie Black was a legend amongst the engineering and motoring fraternity and was a Life Member of the Hawkes Bay Vintage Car Club. He was also a great mate of mine and we enjoyed a gin or two at his home, twice a week for many years.

Like many, I will miss him.

Let me remind you of what the Minister for Local Government said at this years Local Government conference.

“Amalgamation is risky. It’s too easy to end up with councils even more remote and more bureaucratic losing the ‘local’ in local decision making. So looking ahead I see benefits in shared services and councils working together on both projects and plans for the wider regions of which their communities are a part. I believe in that way we can enjoy the benefits of amalgamation while keeping the ‘local’ in local government and avoiding the risks of amalgamation”.

So here we have the Minister for Local Government with access to all the experts, research and resources, telling us that amalgamation is risky, that amalgamation will result in the loss of “local” in local government and that amalgamation is not the answer but shared services and co-operation is.

Yet here in Hawkes Bay we have a whole bunch of people, most of whom have not spent one minute researching the topic – not one minute studying what has happened in other areas that have amalgamated – saying that the answer to all our ills is to throw all our councils together with indecent haste.

Frankly it simply doesn’t make sense.

The pro amalgamation brigades expensive advertising campaign, which disingenuously tells us they only want a survey done, is gathering momentum. They have a couple of bully-boys on the phones drumming up support and adding your name to the list has obviously become the trendy thing to do.

What concerns me is that the thinking people, those who have taken the time to look at what’s happening overseas, particularly in Queensland, those who have taken note of the well researched views of the Minister for Local Government – the thinking people are silent. I know it’s easier for those who want radical change to drum up support but those who want sensible progress to be made towards a more prosperous Hawkes Bay also need to stand up and be counted.

So let’s hear from those who support their councils working co-operatively together – their councils sharing services and their elected representatives working collaboratively for the good of Hawkes Bay.

Shirley and I have been in New Orleans for the last two weeks, listening to some wonderful Jazz, enjoying a fascinating city and meeting some wonderful new friends. We got back to Napier this morning (Sunday as I write these notes) at 8.30am after a long journey from New Orleans to Denver, Denver to San Francisco, San Francisco to Auckland and then Auckland to Napier. We are pretty weary.

But it didn’t stop my blood starting to boil – as I sat down to read all the local papers we had missed – when I saw the appalling full page advertisement supporting amalgamation – and lets be honest here, it is amalgamation these people want, the independent study is simply a smokescreen.

Now I know and respect many of the signatories to this insulting missive – in fact I regard a number of them as personal friends. In their defense I can only assume that they weren’t given a copy to read before allowing their names to be used. Had they seen the copy I’m sure they would have asked the amalgamation team spin doctor to come up with something more intelligent. How insulting and precious is it to headline this advertisement with “We want a better performing Hawkes Bay, do you?” Who in their right mind would not want their province to perform better?

And I will continue to ask the question: Why is Hawkes Bay suddenly going to perform better because we have thrown all our local councils together with indecent haste? Not one person has been able to give me an answer. I remain convinced that the plan that Mayor Yule is the spokesperson for, may benefit some individuals but is not in the best interests of Hawkes Bay as a province at this time and it is certainly not in the best interests of the Napier ratepayers that I represent.

Somehow or other, a small group of people with their own agenda, have managed to convince a whole range of people that Hawkes Bay is performing badly. They seem to take great delight in telling the world that Hawkes Bay is not the place to do business – that Hawkes Bay is a backwater going backwards. Why they would want to do that is beyond me but their attitude and resulting publicity is undermining all the good work that many are doing to promote the Bay. And frankly Hawkes Bay is doing OK when compared with its peers. Sure it could do better but again I say: What convinces these people that amalgamation is the answer to future prosperity?

Hawkes Bay is a province that is still heavily reliant on primary production. We are outperforming similar agriculture and horticulture based provinces. The standard of living in Hawkes Bay over recent years, measured by “real GDP per capita” is miles ahead of the national figure. Our unemployment figures are less than the national figure. There is some excellent news out there but all Lawrence and his team seem to want to do is paint a black view of the Bay.

Finally I am simply amused by the spin doctors words in the advertisement: “We need to develop a regional vision and plan that is future focused, inclusive and offers people a first class quality of life supported by a sound economic base.”
Frankly that is what so many people have been working towards for a long time and we are clearly now seeing some benefits of that work. The formation of a proper regional tourism organization, the formation of a proper regional business organization and a host of other co-operative and collaborative initiatives. All this whist ensuring our ratepayers have a proper localized say in how the rates take is spent.

What saddens me is that just as the benefits of this hard work by many, start to feed through into our economy, a small group in our midst has decided to hijack the process and embark on a campaign which will be counter productive to growth in Hawkes Bay.

Would you bring your family or business to Hawkes Bay after listening to Lawrence trotting out his tired old negative nonsense?

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.