You ask??? and I say,’ please NOT in the direction we’re currently going! I agree wholeheartedly with both articles, “Owning the Future” in the 14/7 Informer, which opposed the Coalition Government’s pressured push for amalgamation and argued for keeping the door open to retain TCDC as a distinct region: one whose cultural and economic identity is bound up with its coastal and natural environment. I have grouped Denis Tegg’s and Geoffrey Robinson’s points into four main concerns.
1. Unnecessary, fear-mongering urgency. A 90-day deadline from May is far too pressured a timeframe for what acting-Mayor Grant himself (at local meeting,13/7) called “a once in a generation” decision. TCDC’s response has been hedging and inadequate: review results begun on 7/6 were released on the eve of the Matariki long weekend, with a final deadline two days after submissions closed on the equally-momentous Conservation Amendment Bill (CAB). Moreover, central government has no legitimate mandate for this ‘Head Start or die’ approach!
2. Representation reduced to ‘lip service’ consultation. The survey showed “keeping decision-making local” was the most popular response (30%), ahead of “ratepayer value” (25%) yet both these are reliant on TCDC providing “better planning” and “practical, achievable change” (only 10% each). Like all ‘surveys’ around wholly integrated issues such results are unreliable and far too much remains unresolved around both RMA reform and Te Tiriti relations.
Also troubling is Council’s SLG feedback summary that presented percentages as if for 100% of responses, when they only reflected the three TCDC options, despite assurances that alternatives (Option 4 or a backstop/no-merger option) could be noted under “Other.” I know at least ten people like me, who chose that route, so why weren’t those responses recorded or shared publicly?
It highlights a broader shrinking of transparency and accountability: a politicisation of local, central and global government alike, most visible in increased lobbying and privileged access for self-interested parties. This is both divisive and damaging to our national identity and our future in general. Concern is compounded by the revelation via the Official Information Act, that 1500 petitioners supported a Unitary Coromandel Council back in 2012–13, and now by yet another rushed ‘public opinion’ exercise (“Imagining the Coromandel”) that references a 2009 Blueprint Vision. It all has a distinctly political flavour, leading us directly to the question of “Who Pays?”
3. The cost case for merging doesn’t hold up. Genuine community wellbeing and environmental concerns are being sidelined, as in the risk to Thames and Whitianga as local economic hubs, or the Coalition’s plan to replace the RMA with a Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill, announced just a week after CAB submissions closed. Such undemocratic law changes must factor into any TCDC decision.
Historically, infrastructure has not kept pace with commercial interests in town expansion, tourism, mining, forestry and fishing. Rate-payers are more and more carrying the burden for this ‘unplanned development’ and often in an inequitable way. Also, recent weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle, have added to maintenance costs, while governments, corporations and insurers alike step back from liability. TCDC needs to seriously weigh all such ‘hidden’ and transitional costs of amalgamation against our already large infrastructure backlog.
4. The moral and ethical stakes of the Treaty. Documents filed with the Waitangi Tribunal show a decades-long government approach that diminishes the Treaty’s effect as it has no legal force unless referenced in other legislation. Proposed changes would reduce government obligations to merely “taking into account” the Treaty across nine Acts; potentially even more damaging than the Treaty Principles Bill. Amalgamation also threatens hard-won trust between government and local iwi. The Treaty’s constitutional principles must be treated as a bottom line before any further changes proceed.
In conclusion, no SLG proposal should be rushed through before the Nov. election and I ask TCDC to resist inclusion in any merger by the August 9 deadline. Learning from past research and continuing genuine consultation would serve Council and ratepayers’ pockets far better than an irreversible decision made under pressure. I’d fully support a Unitary Coromandel Council or, as a second option, one that includes Hauraki District given our shared Gulf and coastline. A different Option 4, like Dirk Sieling’s ideas, also merit discussion, but despite differences between east and west, the Peninsula is a strong, geographically and economically viable unit that can stand on its own. Please don’t place our Coromandel in the shadow of a bigger, more distant decision-making power. Thank you.
