In a staggering display of political naiveté, lack of business acumen, fear, wishful thinking, and failure to heed flashing warning signs brightly, a divided TCDC Council sold out its communities last week by signing on to a half-baked and defective – but binding – amalgamation deal with two other districts coming away as grinning winners.
Just like the hapless oysters of Walrus and the Carpenter renown, a halting and submissive Mayor Peter Revell and six Council adherents walked headlong into a long-term democratic disaster of their own making, willingly consigning their district to a minority position in an expanded subregional council, surrendering its political autonomy, and gifting away control over local peninsula government for decades to come. Only four counsellors stood up for strong local democracy.
No Guaranteed Benefits: A Losing Proposition
By identical 7-4 votes, the Council first agreed to submit a Head Start amalgamation proposal to the government. Then, it rubber-stamped the terms of a three-way agreement with Hauraki and Matamata-Piako districts that had been negotiated in secret during July, strictly withheld from public scrutiny or comment, and unveiled at the last minute as a done-deal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be signed and sealed by the three mayors just hours later.
As clearly outlined by Cr Rasmussen, a practising lawyer arguing against adoption, the amalgamation MOU is simply a non-binding list of aspirations, completely devoid of detail regarding the new council’s structure, representation, treatment of assets and debt, and a long list of other critical issues yet to be hammered out. It does, however, lock TCDC into negotiations exclusively with Hauraki and Matamata-Piako, thereby eliminating any possibility of exploring other merger options should the hastily arranged council marriage falter at the outset. Contrary to public assurances given to councillors last month while Head Start options were being explored, the signed-off Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is legally binding with no off-ramps.
There is a reason that both Hauraki and Matamata-Piako councils voted unanimously for the three-way amalgamation within hours of the TCDC vote. For those councils, the capture of minority partner Thames-Coromandel District will be a rates bonanza. With thousands of non-resident holiday home ratepayers swelling the revenue stream, the Coromandel promises to be a financial milking shed for decades.
The TCDC decision to lock itself into an ill-defined amalgamation agreement – one that puts the district at a permanent control disadvantage with no guaranteed benefits – is unlike the actions of virtually every other local council across New Zealand. A review of reports on Head Start decisions by councils from Southland to Northland, Wellington to Hamilton, and Canterbury to the Bay of Plenty turns up no other example of a local authority voluntarily entering into a disadvantageous merger proposal. Other district and city mayors have been vocal about putting their residents’ interests above all other concerns, and they have acted accordingly. For councils requiring a financial lifeline and for those within naturally defined urban catchments, amalgamation is obviously a good choice. But a sizeable list of local authorities have decided against submitting any Head Start merger proposal. Several locally minded councils have voted in favour of a standalone unitary council structure to firmly entrench local control and decision-making for the future.
Dazed and Confused: Spooked by the Government
With hindsight, how and why Thames-Coromandel District Council came to sign away its fundamental autonomy is clear, and it began with a timid, defensive response to the government’s 5 May ministerial directive on simplifying local government. As the ministers made clear, the Head Start pathway was entirely voluntary and offered specifically to councils ready to act quickly. TCDC is not one of those councils and was certainly not ready for or in need of any merger. Amalgamation was not on the public agenda. The council enjoys a strong financial position, and common interests with neighbouring councils are very limited.
But the language of the Head Start announcement spooked a timid TCDC Mayor Revell. Unitary councils, large or small, would be mandatory after 2028, the directive said, and the government would have the last word on any new council arrangement. But the mayor and his Council followers mistakenly took this to mean that, if it did not advance a Head Start merger proposal this month, TCDC would eventually be “forced against its will” by the government to accept a bad, if not catastrophic, structure. They repeatedly expressed concern that the council “would lose control” if it did not submit a merger plan, and the frightful prospect of an as-yet-undefined alternative process for councils opting out of Head Start drove the council’s initial response.
Totally Back to Front: The Mayor Gets It Wrong
As is often the case when fear and uncertainty drive decisions, Mayor Peter Revell got the Head Start pathway completely back to front and the cart before the horse from the start. Instead of first exploring and evaluating all options for council simplification, and then, after investigation and analysis of all options, making an informed decision on whether or not to submit a proposal, the mayor committed first to submitting a merger plan, and only then to go out and bargain with neighbouring councils to identify the “best deal” on offer. As a result, any leverage of just walking away was forfeited. Revell pushed through his fateful commitment to Head Start amalgamation just three weeks later, on 26 May, thereby painting the council into an amalgamation corner. Running scared, he had exchanged the uncertainty of achieving the best outcome for the certainty of accepting a bad outcome. For a master class on non-strategic political leadership, look no further.
For the next two months, until its official surrender on 4 August, the council’s Head Start process was a charade of narrowly circumscribed “public engagement” on a short list of severely limited options – a parody of open and transparent local government. Meeting notes of a five-member working group were kept secret. When updated on “progress”, councillors were warned to keep everything confidential. In contrast to many NZ councils, the mayor rejected attempts to gauge support for a standalone Coromandel Council – the one reform option that would be sure to come out on top in TCDC’s informal online survey if it were included. The mayor embarrassed himself by groveling for acceptance at a Bay of Plenty Mayoral Forum meeting, introduced himself down the road as “The Last Mayor of Thames-Coromandel District”, and then departed for a perfectly timed four-week overseas holiday, leaving his deputy, John Granrt, as amalgamation bag man. The process was tightly stage-managed, and the outcome, for the most part, predetermined.
A Very Bad Outcome: What’s in Store
While Revell last week painted the merger as a marvellous achievement, anyone who can add and divide can see that Mayor Revell and Deputy Mayor Grant, the TCDC “leadership”, have been played for fools. Instead of listing the guaranteed benefits that will accrue to his district – of which there are none – an obsequious mayor proudly pointed to how many boxes he had ticked in meeting the government’s amalgamation guidelines. Cringe…
Coromandel residents currently elect all 11 Council members. Starting in 2028, they will elect four or five members out of 12 to 16. The district represents best case only 33.3% of the newly merged area, and the government will only accept representation based on population – one person, one vote. Community boards and public forums at meetings will be out – Hauraki doesn’t have them now, and neither will the new council. One or two Coromandel “local boards” (east and west) will likely handle reserves, libraries, road names, Christmas decorations, and a modest basket of grant ‘lollies’ for local groups and events. As in Hauraki now, each town will host an annual “meet-and-greet” with the mayor and staff answering pre-submitted questions on footpaths and street lighting and offering assurances that the council will “look into it”.
And local observers do not need a crystal ball to see how ambition will likely play out. At the next local body elections, expect a polished and politically savvy Hauraki Mayor Toby Adams to take the new council helm at expanded Paeroa headquarters. Revell, who has been over his head as mayor, and those current councillors who want to stick around and pick up the pieces, will be happy to stand for local board positions. No say on rates or policy or hiring or service levels, but ‘a finger in the pie’.
As for regular Coromandel residents and ratepayers paying the bills, it will be “long-distance calling”.
Bouquets and Brickbats: Here’s Who to Thank
Voting to relegate Thames-Coromandel District to a minority position in the new Hauraki Plains amalgamated council were Mayor Peter Revell, Deputy Mayor and Mercury Bay Cr John Grant, Thames Crs Greg Hampton, Martin Rodley, and Robyn Sinclair, Whangamatā Cr John Freer, and Te Tarao Te Ika Cr Michael Barlow.
Voting against a Head Start amalgamation proposal and the binding MOU agreement with Hauraki and Matamata-Piako councils were Mercury Bay Crs Tony Brljevich and Flemming Rasmussen, Tairua-Pāuanui Cr Alison Smith, and Coromandel-Colville Cr Rob Ashman.
Good Luck!
