There are weeks when a local paper earns its place on the kitchen table, and the 23 June Informer was one of them. In a handful of pages it gave readers the clearest picture yet of the amalgamation question facing the Coromandel – the options, the numbers and the competing arguments – set out so an ordinary resident could weigh them. The paper and its contributors deserve thanks for that.
The centrepiece was TCDC’s own “Owning Our Future” summary. It laid out the three options now under consultation: a ten-council “Greater Waikato” supercity of around 530,000; a four-council coastal grouping of around 256,000 taking in part of Hauraki; and a smaller four-council option of around 120,000. The Council was candid that none is costless. Its survey of 527 residents found 70 percent naming rates control as a priority, with the loss of local representation and decisions made further away the concerns ticked most often. People wanted real simplification, not another layer of bureaucracy, and favoured partnering with councils of similar size and coastal character while avoiding others’ debt.
Dirk Sieling put the numbers side by side. His figures had TCDC carrying the district’s highest residential rates – around $4,932 a year – yet a comparatively light household debt against the heavier burdens of the cities. His fair conclusion was that rates look likely to rise under every option, that any grouping with Hauraki inherits its debt, and that residents deserve more financial context before choosing.
Geoffrey Robinson asked whether any of the proposed marriages actually suits us. He noted that TCDC is only around 27 percent of the four-council population but close to 43.6 percent of its rating units – a gap that matters when seats and apportionment are negotiated. He also revisited the option that keeps reappearing: a standalone Coromandel council, which on the analysis he cited would be financially viable, given the more than $19.2 million district ratepayers paid to the regional council in 2025-26.
Trevor Ammundsen came at it through our Community Boards and the recent erosion of their authority. He set out the east coast’s grievance – a large share of rates raised here, a smaller share spent here – and argued the realistic prize is an Auckland-style Local Board with real budget powers, rather than full independence. I’ll declare an interest, as the piece referred to my own view that boards should receive a fixed percentage of the district rate take. I hold to that, but his wider argument stands on its own.
The paper also gave us the neighbour’s view. Hauraki Mayor Toby Adams made plain that his district looks to the Waikato, won’t restore its community boards, and holds no view on TCDC’s options – because, as he put it, he is not our mayor and has no interest in splitting up his own community. A useful reminder that willing partners are not simply waiting for us. The message from Hon Scott Simpson rounded things out, placing the reform in its central-government context.
Read together, these pieces share one thread: local voice. Whatever each writer preferred, all circled back to the same worry – that decisions affecting the Peninsula should keep being made by people who live on it.
And the clock is running. Feedback to TCDC closes on 15 July. A short submission, even a paragraph, is worth more than a year of grumbling at the letterbox.
My thanks to The Informer, its editor, and to Dirk Sieling, Geoffrey Robinson, Trevor Ammundsen and the others who put their names to a view. A community cannot own its future if it cannot first read about it plainly.
