Vote AGAINST Amalgamation

Voting papers are out. You MUST vote. Not voting is a vote in favour of amalgamation. Don't put it off, do it today. Make sure your friends have voted ... before the distraction of Easter and school holidays. VOTE AGAINST AMALGAMATION.

Proposed new governance model

The proposed amalgamated council would consist of 1 Mayor and 16 Councillors (elected from 8 Wards).  One councillor from Atawhai, Golden Bay and Murchison wards; two councillors from Motueka and Moutere/Waimea wards; and three councillors from Nelson, Stoke and Richmond wards.

Motueka and Golden Bay Wards would also have Community Boards, each with four members, with the option for up to six more community boards in the remaining six wards.

The final proposal also includes the creation of an unelected, paid Rural Advisory Committee comprising 7 members from various rural industries, plus unelected, paid 10-member Maori Board.

The Rural Committee, Maori Board and Community Boards would each appoint a member to sit on (and vote on) every council standing committee (with the exception of finance in the case of the community boards).

The Local Government Commission has estimated an increase of nearly $500,000 per annum in governance costs (which doesn’t include the possible 6 additional community boards).  These costs would be met by the ratepayers across the district.

International Facts on Amalgamation

International Public Policy Consultant Wendell Cox

This presentation is from Wendell Cox, a highly respected international public policy consultant. Wendell was originally going to present and answer questions remotely at the public meeting on 15 March "Amalgamation: Impossible Dream, Achievable Nightmare" with Owen McShane. Wendell has still prepared the attached presentation so that people have the opportunity to view some of his research.

Wendell Cox, is principal of Wendell Cox Consultancy, an international public policy, demographics and transport consulting firm. He has developed a leadership role in urban transport and land use and the firm maintains three internet websites. Wendell Cox has completed projects in Canada, the United States, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Africa. He was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission which oversaw highways and public transit in the largest county in the United States. He was also appointed to the Amtrak Reform Council. Wendell Cox is visiting professor at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers in Paris.

Nelson Tasman Amalgamation Proposal - The Facts

The Polls

·        Not voting is a vote in favour of amalgamation.

·        Completed voting documents must be received by the electoral officer before noon, 21 April 2012.

·        For the reorganisation scheme (amalgamation) to proceed, more than 50% of the votes cast by the electors in each poll must be in favour of the proposal.

·        Of note, it does not have to be more than 50% of the population or more than 50% of eligible voters, only more than 50% of those who vote in each poll.

                                                                     

Central Government will force it

·        This is incorrect.  If the more than 50% of votes cast are against amalgamation, then it
      will not proceed – by law.  John Key has also clearly stated that he will not be forcing any

      local government amalgamations.

·        A review of local government has been announced by the former Local Government Minister.  This is a nationwide process that will be happening whether amalgamation goes ahead or not; and ratepayers would still need to pay any further rating impacts as a consequence of this reform.

·       Under the local government reforms, any future governance changes, of which amalgamation is only one option, would still require “sufficient public support” to go ahead.

Rating Impacts

·        While some grand promises have been made, the Local Government Commission has

      been very careful to down play potential cost savings and has said that “while net savings

      will occur these are unlikely to translate into rates reductions...” and that “an undue focus

      on financial savings may therefore be misleading for the public.”

·       The current rating systems would remain in place for 3 years.  In 2015 the amalgamated Council is required to adopt a capital value rating system (Tasman currently uses capital value and Nelson uses land value).  The transition from land value to capital value has historically resulted in large rating fluctuations for some sectors.

Debt

·        One of the reported “benefits” of amalgamation is the ability to take on more debt.

·       The proposed amalgamation would see the sharing of assets across the region (e.g. Tasman’s forestry income), but not the sharing of debt.  Income from assets currently contributes towards paying off Tasman’s debt – under amalgamation debt repayment would be ring-fenced to Tasman ratepayers only by way of targeted rate.

·       The fact that only debt has been ring-fenced and depreciation funding has not, could result in significant inequities between ratepayers across a combined region.

Governance Model

·         An amalgamated council would consist of 1 Mayor and 16 Councillors (elected from 8

      Wards).

·       The reorganization proposal includes the creation of a Rural Advisory Committee and a Maori Board.

·       Motueka and Golden Bay Wards would have Community Boards with the option for up to 6 more community boards in the remaining 6 wards.

·       The Rural Committee, Maori Board and Community Boards would each appoint a member to sit on (and vote on) every council standing committee (with the exception of finance in the case of the community boards).

·       The Local Government Commission has estimated an increase of nearly $500,000 per annum in governance costs (which doesn’t include the possible 6 additional community boards).  These costs would be met by the ratepayers across the district.

Rural Representation

·       The Rural Advisory Committee, made up primarily of industry representatives, does not

      replace elected representation.

·       The committee members will not be directly accountable to the ratepayers, and they will not be on Full Council that signs off all final rating decisions and Council plans.

·       At the moment 9 of 13 councillors are from the rural areas of Tasman, whereas under this proposal only 6 out of 16 councillors would be.

Lobby Power

·        Central government funding decisions are generally made based on the population of the

      community/town in which the project is to be located e.g. Motueka, not the population of

      the Council or region as a whole.

·        Projects that do not meet key government criteria, such as congestion levels or government expenditure priorities, do not receive funding regardless of Council size.

Economies of Scale

·        Economies of scale, such as through enlarged purchasing power, can be achieved

      without the cost of amalgamation and at a greater scale in conjunction with Marlborough.

      (A South Island block of Councils is currently being worked on, which would lobby Central

      Government and more adequately compete with the Auckland Super City).

·       Collaboration between Councils and other agencies enables efficiencies and cost savings on a larger scale, such as the creation of the Local Government Funding Agency (owned by 18 Councils and the Crown, of which Tasman is one) or the new Library management software (collaboration between 8 Councils, including Tasman, Nelson and Marlborough).

·       Nelson and Tasman councils already work collaboratively on a wide range of projects including pest management whereupon Tasman employs the specialist staff and contracts their services to Nelson.

·       Rolling all infrastructure contracts into one would limit smaller local businesses from being able to tender for work and would reduce the ability of one council to get competitive tenders.

All facts and figures are derived from the Local Government Commission and Strateg.Ease Reports and Ernst & Young Peer Review available from the Local Government Commission website www.lgc.govt.nz

Owen McShane on Amalgamation

Nelson Tasman Amalgamation

Council impacts on all of our lives, every day and in so many ways. Some are quite obvious, like flushing the toilet, driving to work or watering our garden. But others are less obvious, like having a coffee in Sundial Square, going for a swim at Aniseed Valley or taking your kids for a play at the playground.

Councils need to be able to plan for all of a community’s needs, big or smallneeds, big or small; water, roading, wastewater, libraries, cemeteries, parks and so forth.

What each community needs, and its priorities, will vary greatly from person to person, town to town, area to area. There are also not just ‘urban needs’ and ‘rural needs’. For example, the needs and priorities in St Arnaud are different to those in Bainham; Dovedale is different to Pakawau; Richmond is different to Motueka, Wakefield is different to Takaka.needs, big or small; water, roading, wastewater, libraries, cemeteries, parks and so forth.

What each community needs, and its priorities, will vary greatly from person to person, town to town, area to area. There are also not just ‘urban needs’ and ‘rural needs’. For example, the needs and priorities in St Arnaud are different to those in Bainham; Dovedale is different to Pakawau; Richmond is different to Motueka, Wakefield is different to Takaka.; water, roading, wastewater, libraries, cemeteries, parks and so forth.

What each community needs, and its priorities, will vary greatly from person to person, town to town, area to area.  There are also not just ‘urban needs’ and ‘rural needs’.  For example, the needs and priorities in St Arnaud are different to those in Bainham; Dovedale is different to Pakawau; Richmond is different to Motueka; Wakefield is different to Takaka.

And communities are not just geographically based; the business community has different needs and priorities to the residential community.

It is the role and responsibility of a Council to balance all of the various needs and priorities of every community.  They need to ensure the needs and priorities of residential ratepayers are not overshadowed by the lobbying of big business.

The time has come for you to consider what sort of Council you want and need.  Is it a large inaccessible bureaucracy that focuses on the needs of big business; or one that is able to be responsive to the needs of the individual ratepayer, the individual community?

Larger bureaucracies tend to disenfranchise people – it is easier for things to slip between the cracks; easier to have non-performing staff members; harder for the public to access the people they need to; and harder for the public to be involved in decision-making.

We are in the enviable position of having unitary authorities overseeing both the territorial and regional responsibilities of Nelson and Tasman.  It is the dual layer of governance that has proved problematic elsewhere – Auckland’s biggest woes were transportation and regional responsibilities; and Environment Canterbury councillors were sacked over its water management responsibilities and resource consent processes.

The proposed one council introduces a complex second tier of governance comprising a Rural Advisory Committee, a Maori Board and two Community Boards.  The Local Government Commission has estimated an increase of nearly $500,000 a year to maintain this two-tier governance structure.

Our communities have their own strong local character, identity and ability to influence decisions.

Perhaps one of the most significant decisions for Nelson and Tasman, and for each of you personally, is now in your hands.

Choose your community.  Choose local democracy.

Voting papers will be in your hands soon and it is important that you have your say, by voting against amalgamation.  Not voting is a vote for amalgamation.

The Fine Print of Amalgamation by Councillor Judene Edgar

The final amalgamation proposal put out by the Local Government Commission is not only exceedingly different to the draft proposal that people submitted on, but it is different to any other local government structure within New Zealand.

Auckland councils amalgamated to become a unitary authority with 21 local boards and six Council Controlled Organisations that are responsible for council investments; property; tourism, events and economic development; transport; waterfront development and regional facilities.  There is also a Maori Board, and Pacific and Ethnic Advisory Panels.

While other councils and ratepayers around the country looked at this model and wondered what impact it may have on the future of their regions, the proposed model for Nelson-Tasman is different again.  So how does this fit into the local government sector?

How does this fit into the Local Government Minister’s plans for a “radical change” with the imminent announcement of a “top-to-bottom reform of local authorities” and the drafting of “legislation this year that will take away a number of [local government’s] key obligations introduced in 2002” (The Listener, 23 February 2012)?

One has to question the timing of the proposed amalgamation.  Despite being a proponent of the Auckland amalgamation, past Local Government Minister Rodney Hide did not consider this was necessary for other councils around the country.

“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” (Rodney Hide’s address to LGNZ Conference, July 2011).

He also implored Councils, nervous about the size and lobby power of Auckland, to not rush into amalgamations, but to wait until Auckland had bedded in and “to learn something about what governance structures may or may not best serve our own communities.”  Mr Hide's Cabinet paper, ‘Smarter Government, Stronger Communities’, released last April, was to consider the structure of local government, including the usefulness of unitary authorities, and the relationship between local and central government, including the efficiency of local government's role in regulatory systems.  Consequently, he felt it inappropriate for councils to initiate ad hoc amalgamation processes.  The current Local Government Minister is clearly continuing this path of local government reform.

But back to the Local Government Commission’s proposed governance model for Nelson-Tasman.  While proponents of amalgamation are saying to look at the big picture, the devil is always in the detail, and this is where we need to look.

It is certainly interesting that they have not followed the Auckland model, but have come out with another untested, two-tier governance model.  It is similarly interesting that Nick Smith has said that a key element of his proposed reform will be the abolition of regional councils as “we just don’t need that extra layer of bureaucracy.”  

The proposal incorporates an extended council with 1 mayor and 16 councillors and then a second layer of governance comprising two community boards, a Maori Board and a Rural Advisory committee.  However, a key difference with the proposed structure to other local governance models is that they will each get to have a member sit on each Council Committee (with the exclusion of the finance committee in the case of the Community Boards) with full voting rights.  This is a key element of the detail I find intuitively problematic.

The advisory boards, with basically mandated personal agendas, will be able to vote on all issues whether they are relevant to them or not.  Similarly, community board members are elected to represent only their Wards (not the entire District like Councillors), but they will also be entitled to vote on district-wide matters, yet they have a legal obligation to only look after their own Wards.  The lack of accountability back to ratepayers and residents is a concerning aspect of detail.

And instead of reducing governance costs as has been expressed by a large number of ratepayers, the Local Government Commission are projecting increases of nearly $500,000 a year for the proposed structure.

There are a lot of other aspects of the detail that are concerning, such as the recommendation that an amalgamated Council should consider the establishment of a further six community boards.  And rather than a reduction in Council plans, each community board is required to prepare and consult on their own ‘community plans’ with the potential for more, as the two advisory boards may similarly wish to consult on and prepare plans to feel that they are adequately representing their stakeholders.

This is a significant decision for Nelson and Tasman ratepayers and residents.  Take the time to look at some of the detail so you know what you’re selecting.  Don’t just believe the slick sales pitches, deceptive rhetoric, and fancy talk.  Question, seek answers, read the facts, look at the details.