Having been approached by a number of people asking for my preferred of the 3 options, I had to start thinking as I didn’t have one. I started with my non negotiables:
1. Ringfence the debt of any amalgamating entities. In other words, ensure that outstanding debt, including its interest is paid by those entities that have incurred the debt. The corollary being that any assets owned by any amalgamating entity are also ringfenced or a compromise is calculated whereby assets and their income offset debt
2. Community Boards must have meaningful responsibility, budget and autonomy. Local Boards as suggested by Trevor Amundsen with budgets proportional to their rating base. The voice of these new boards needs to be strong at Unitary Authority level.
3. The rural voice needs to be protected. This means meaningful representation at UA level based on rural zoning. Environmental science and compliance need to move from regional councils to a central government agency.
4. Commonality of social, economic and cultural interests.
5. Any reorganisation must result in a meaningful reduction in bureaucracy costs and subsequent staffing levels. There is not much point in amalgamation unless worthwhile savings are achieved.
I weighed my conditions against the options:
Option 1: A big powerful Waikato super council is not seriously considered by any of the
Districts involved and likely to be rejected by the public, so it was discarded.
Option 2: A Northwestern Bay of Plenty entity could meet conditions 1 to 4 especially for the Coromandel East Coast, but condition 5 only if the Thames bureaucracy was significantly reduced.
Option 3: Eastern Waikato matches Hauraki’s preferred option but 4 districts, a long way apart, would scrap to maintain their power and staff. The status quo loomed.
Unconvinced I considered alternatives:
Going it alone
TCDC going it alone and assuming the WRC responsibilities, as promoted by Geoffery Robinson, would add a layer of bureaucracy and bringing no real change. With government rejection almost certain we would weaken our negotiating hand and end up with Option 3 promoted by Hauraki.
OPTION 4
Unexpectedly, I arrived at another option that was considered by the TCDC working group but not chosen to be presented to the public. That’s a shame because it should have been.
It is an amended form of Option 2 amalgamating with WBOP but with a carve out for the greater Thames area. Only two Districts would have to amalgamate into a manageable moderately sized unit (including Tauranga with its debts and assets ringfenced or equitably dealt with). Thames would amalgamate with Hauraki. This option would meet all my bottom lines including commonality of interests such as agriculture, horticulture, coastal and marine activities, a considerable retirement community as well as biodiversity and catchment issues.
Thames has long been part of the Hauraki economy as a service centre and including Thames just might persuade Hauraki Mayor Toby Adams to drop his stated opposition to surrendering Whiritoa. It will certainly give Hauraki something to consider as, what I call Option 4, will probably make sense to the government. It would also address the longstanding East vs West parochialism in our district that resulted following the amalgamation of the Coromandel and Thames Counties and Borough years ago. Arguments over rating income disappearing ‘over the hill’ would cease. The drastic surgery of Option 4 perhaps frightened some elected members as too radical, but for effective change drastic surgery may be just the ticket. I believe it would also strengthen our hand in the many convoluted negotiations that are still to come.
I plan to go to The Lost Spring on Thursday to find answers from our representatives why Option 4, which in my view puts TCDC in a stronger bargaining position, is not on the table. Hope to see you there. For the other meetings on the Coromandel Peninsula please see Page 21.
