Napier City is little more than a tiny enclave. It gained substantial rateable land "free" uplifted by the 1931 earthquake. It has only streets to maintain, no rural roads. Also, fortunately for Napier, it has the Regional Council headquarters, the Port, the Airport, the High Court, EIT, the National Aquarium and the HB Museum, as well as most provincial sporting headquarters, McLean Park for rugby and cricket and Park Island for football and hockey and the Pettigrew Green Arena for basketball and netball.
What a boon it must be to have so many Hawke's Bay funded facilities and the income that can be derived from them inside Napier's patch, without a fair contribution to any rural roading.
Napier has an artesian water supply that doesn't require treatment and a sewerage/wastewater consent that allows only partial treatment, unbelievably, then to be pumped into Hawke Bay!
Is it any wonder Napier has little to no debt and don't want amalgamation? Why would they? They are living on the pig's back. Added to their parochialism and selfishness is the present political gaming in terms of national politics in the Napier electorate.
The taking of a position on amalgamation has become the decider on who represents Napier in Wellington. Unfortunately, this now plays a large part in Hawke's Bay's disunity.
There is one part of this amalgamation I was not comfortable with, that is the Regional Council being disestablished to become part of a unitary council. I think we should have further considered Fenton Wilson's idea of an East Coast Regional Council, one that concentrates on its core business only, that is land, water, plant and animal pests from the coast to the top of the ranges.
Vote-driven, urban councillors bringing a predominance of townie views on environmental issues will possibly not bring good balance to land-based decisions. Having done some recent homework I find there has been considerable effort made to cover off some of my concerns.
I would like to offer a new approach altogether for Hawke's Bay's infrastructure.
I think we should combine the port, the airport, the RWSS when it is built and join Centralines with Unison (there is little to no separation between these two now) to form one infrastructure company for HB.
That would mean only one set of professional, focused governors. This alone would bring substantial savings in directors' fees.
Importantly this would also take the Port income away from the local politicians, with the dividends from these total assets contestable and shared over the whole of HB.
My limited councillor experience tells me a larger, capital-intensive, amalgamated council should attract highly qualified, competent staff and councillors, which should bring focused, more rigorous governance.
For the councillors it will be a fulltime job. We should be able to attract prudent governors with strong business acumen to stand, people who are capable of holding experienced local body management to account. Councillors who know where to look for inconsistencies in financial information and are able to smell consultant "bullswool" dressed up in engineering or planning jargon from a mile away.
So get on and vote HB and let's get an answer, hopefully a good mandate, because if it is a close call this issue will continue to fester.
-Andrew Watts is a Central Hawke's Bay District Councillor.
-Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. The views expressed here are the writer's personal opinion and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz. -Viewpoints on the amalgamation debate can be submitted for consideration and will be used as long as no council resources, money, time or expertise are used in their preparation.
This is a requirement of the Local Government Act 2002.
