HB’s councils have retained two politically astute facilitators to help sort their reorganisation options in response to the Government’s Head Start ‘invitation’ – Lawrence Yule and Wayne Eagleson. Yule is well known as a long-serving Hasting mayor (and Tukituki MP); Eagleson served as chief of staff to PMs Key and English.
They have been collecting intel and listening for weeks now, and visited each territorial council in the last week or so to share information on the concerns they are hearing from stakeholders and to outline emerging principles to guide any Head Start reorganisation proposal to the Government.
And importantly, to begin testing the waters with councils regarding what kinds of actual options might be feasible. In other words, herding the cats.
Three basic structural options are on the table at this point, and councils are presently consulting on them.
Option 1. Do nothing. If our territorial authorities do not agree, by 9 August, to submit a plan (or plans), the Government has made clear it will dictate the new structure, with every indication that a single unitary council is their aim. Given that, it behooves our local politicians to swallow their pride and local tribalism and shape and submit a plan that best suits HB’s needs.
Defaulting to Option 1 should be grounds for impeachment of those elected officials responsible.
Option 2. Split the region into two unitary councils, North and South. The boundary most mentioned between the two would be the Tutaekuri River between Napier and Hastings. This option is only slightly less dumb than Option 1.
Most of pages of arguments against this option fall into one of three categories:
- Duplicate mini-regional ‘operations’ would need to be structured and staffed into each of the North and South Councils to handle the huge land and water management functions of current HBRC, which in reality must be addressed on a catchment-wide basis. To say nothing of the programmatic stupidity of such an arrangement, it compounds the redundancy the Government is determined to eliminate.
- Fails to capture, let alone optimise, the efficiency gains that would accrue from amalgamating the Hastings and Napier Councils, whose routine operations affect and cost (and often confound and frustrate) most of the population and businesses of the region on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, it fails to track the hugely important ‘3 Waters’ consolidation that NCC, HDC and CHBDC councils are already establishing.
- Fails to provide one voice – with one set of priorities – to engage with and lobby central government in the best interests of Hawke’s Bay. Have proponents of N/S Hawke’s Bay learnt nothing from the success of the HB Recovery Agency after Gabrielle?
Each of these three downsides could be vastly expanded in detail. And for those reasons fly in the face of what Government aims to achieve … and frankly, will actually accept.
Nevertheless, we do have some elected ‘leaders’ – as best I can tell, only from Napier and Wairoa – advancing Option 2. One can only hope that their present advocacy is merely a temporary negotiating ploy and not a measure of wisdom.
And so, given their insistence, the powers-that-be have decided to consult on this option, as unrealistic as it is.
Option 3. A true unitary council. In this case, at least Hastings, Napier and CHB would see the light. Wairoa either parks its stubbornness and joins voluntarily as a partner in the region’s Headstart proposal … or is ‘inserted’ when the Government renders its verdict on the HB plan. Various permutations of the unitary council option are being examined.
I have included here the presentation just made by Yule/Alexander (who are supported by a working party of senior officials that meets weekly) to the councils. In it you can see a much fuller picture of what is being considered and the issues and principles involved.
Structure aside, thorny discussions around vote weighting, boundary adjustment, local boards, debt and investment management, rate-setting and more are occurring as part of this ‘facilitation’ process, but nitty gritty details would await Government approval of an outlined amalgamation.
As just one example, here is a chart from the presentation suggesting how – in the interest of ensuring some level of local voice and control in a single unitary structure, current local functions and activities might be allocated.
For now, the goal is simply (!) getting the contours of a HB amalgamation plan over the line and accepted as a Headstart proposal. Details to follow.
You can weigh in.
Napier City Council’s consultation survey continues until Friday, July 10 on sayitnapier.nz. NCC is conducting a public amalgamation conversation evening at 6pm on Monday, July 6 at the Napier War Memorial Centre.
Hastings District Council’s consultation and survey continues until Sunday, July 12 on myvoicemychoice.co.nz.
CHB’s consultation options are here.
Wairoa Council’s consultation process is here.
The logical choice is to immediately kill off the tribalism of the separate regions of HB – it’s a fair sized chunk of land populated by a small number of people relatively speaking. It makes sense to join up into one council covering the whole region (I can hear the screams of outrage from Napier particularly) – splitting up is a continued waste of resources, effort, and decision making. It would also have a negative impact on the environment with differing objectives and outcomes. The region is called Hawke’s Bay – make it a Hawke’s Bay Council covering the whole region – Wairoa would have to make a decision to join , or not – and be subject to the Beehive making a decision for them. I would hope Wairoa would continue to voluntarily be part of a Hawke’s Bay unitary structure
Has legislation already been passed that makes this all inevitable? How election dependant is this? Are all major political parties committed to this happening?
As every week goes by, the Unitary Council option for Hawke’s Bay becomes more and more obviously the right way to go. We are one, well defined region and we must capitalise on this advantage. That includes Wairoa.
Is it being considered to hv councillors elected in wards? For example Napier ward x 2 councillors, Hastings ward x 2 councillors etc. so it would be a more balanced regional voice?
Yes. Although seats being talked about are 4 each for Napier and Hastings and 1 each for Wairoa and CHB. I would keep the Rural Services Community Board but add representitives from Wairoa and CHB with the chair having a seat at the Council table. Making a total of 11 Councillors plus the Mayor. The elephant in the room is whether there would be 2, possibly 3 Maori ward representitives to be added. A total of 15 is the same size as the current Hastings DC council.
Thanks for this informative post. The presentation by Lawrence Yule is worth a closer look and contains a lot of valuable material. I agree that Option 2 (a split down the middle) makes no sense at all (and would most likely be rejected by the Government), but I suppose it is worth being considered if only to show how the only real solution is Option 3. On the whole it is good to see the level of consideration being given to this – including the proposed provisions for continuing local decision making where this makes sense (eg parking and noise control) and the prominence given to regional economic development (woefully non existent since the abdication of this responsibility by HBRC and the demise of HBREDA).
What worries me is what happens to the expertise of the Hawkes Bay Regional Council staff? How can 11 councilors + Mayor do all the work to three, possibly 4 councils + Regional Council work?
Margaret
Gisborne District Council is a unitary territorial authority. It has operated since 1989 and now serves 53,000 residents — one-in-four living in rural locations, spread over 8386km², often rugged. Leading e Kaunihera o Te Tairāwhiti is an elected mayor, 13 elected ward councillors and some 250 staff employees, who together have faced multiple issues and disasters.
It seems to work — despite the (big) geographic challenges
You are 100% correct – it has worked, although they had to change some things in the early days. Let’s follow their lead instead of trying to re-invent the wheel. And don’t tell me that having two cities in HB makes a difference. We are one, well defined region. And I have a name to suggest. Not the Hawke’s Bay Unitary Council but the HAWKE’S BAY UNITED COUNCIL.
I’m in favour of a single Unitary Council which may or may not include Wairoa. Wairoa bay be a better fit with Gisborne I think. In the reorganisation there will be staff redundancies but hopefully specialist roles will be kept. I’m thinking of the soil, water and river teams from
HBRC.