Unless TCDC negotiators pull an 11th-hour rabbit out of the amalgamation hat – complete with guaranteed long-term benefits and no loss of decision-making powers for the district – Council will be making the wise decision at its meeting July 28 to taihoa on all its rushed merger options and embark instead on a planning path toward truly local government by, and for, Coromandel Peninsula communities.
By choosing not to submit a high-level amalgamation proposal to the government by its August 9 cutoff, TCDC would be joining other New Zealand councils whose interests do not readily and naturally align with neighbouring districts. These councils will engage in the government’s (as
yet not defined) “backstop” process as they work to develop simplified single-tier council structures that will best serve their constituencies.
Government’s “backstop” option appeared to genuinely spook TCDC leadership at their May 26 meeting, with councillors expressing fears of “losing control” of the reform process if they “failed to act” quickly by picking partners. Councillors expressed concern (without evidence) that an unfavourable amalgamation would ultimately be forced on the district, against its will and interests, if they did not submit an amalgamation proposal by August 9. But while TCDC dismissed the idea from the start and jumped instead to identify three short-list merger options, other councils have been considering the potential benefits of the “backstop”. By declining to submit any rushed and half-baked amalgamation proposal to government now, those councils will be giving themselves time. And in a once-in-generations local government reform process, time is the council’s best friend. There is no emergency.
For councils that choose not to join an amalgamation proposal now, local council business will carry on as it has until the 2028 local body elections. After those next elections, according to present government plans, all districts will either be merged into neighbouring unitary councils – or they may form standalone unitary councils, if and where that is the best outcome. Both are real possibilities, and neither has been ruled out. According to the Department of Internal Affairs, the decision process will be refined sometime in 2027, presumably in cooperative consultation with the affected local councils themselves. The “backstop” choice would give those councils time to work with government on the decision process itself. The “backstop” option also means:
- Time to substantively consult with peninsula communities, discuss options in depth, identify priorities, consider alternatives.
- Time to let pending RMA reform (Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill) run their legislative course.
- Time to properly incorporate iwi relationships into the planning process.
- Time to learn what current regional council functions will migrate up to a national level.
- Time to identify further opportunities for shared services between councils.
- Time to consider available options for effective catchment management.
- Time to explore a further cooperative relationship with the Department of Conservation.
- Time to sort which current regional activities are actually required and which activities
are not. - Time to commission and refine high-level financial analysis of a standalone unitary council.
While TCDC’s mayor has batted away efforts around the Council table to assess community interest in a standalone unitary council (and resisted efforts to include that preference in the council’s public “engagement” process and communications), leaders of other districts have not shied away. In Northland Region, where several rural councils consider regional amalgamations far from ideal, Kaipara District Council voted unanimously last week to oppose merger plans with neighbouring Whangarei and Far North districts. The “backstop” pathway would be the process they will now follow as they continue to pursue a standalone unitary council arrangement. Far North District Council voted to support a plan that would have their district reorganised as a standalone unitary council for an initial period of at least 10 years. A majority of Far North survey respondents this month favoured the go-it-alone structure.
With TCDC’s overall “Head Start” strategy having been written by a former CEO of both Waikato Regional Council and Opotiki District Council (now a TCDC “strategic advisor”); with the Council’s Simplifying Local Government Working Group activity being managed by another former BOP Regional Council senior manager (now a TCDC “facilitator”); and with TCDC’s current CEO being a former Opotiki Council chief also with strong connections to BOPRC, it is not difficult to understand why serious consideration of the Unitary Coromandel Council option has not been in evidence. If anything, it appears to have been actively squelched.
To quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a “backstop” is “something that provides dependable support or protection against failure or loss.”
And truly local government for Coromandel communities is at risk of being lost for good if an ill-conceived, lesser-of-two-evils amalgamation proposal is advanced now. Choosing a “backstop” on July 28 would offer that protection – so TCDC can get on with putting more “local” in local democracy, as the people have asked.
