Misunderstandings about debt, which have been worked up very well by anti-reformists. Nobody wants to take on the next-door-neighbour's debt, but there is a widespread ignorance of council borrowing, not only in Hawke's Bay but almost everywhere else.
Secured borrowing must be balanced by equity (in other words, assets) otherwise the repayment of it is risky. Hastings District Council is a fully solvent authority. Its debt is far outweighed by its assets. The other key point in incurring debt and repaying it - as far as local councils and ratepayers are concerned - is to borrow for infrastructure needed now to develop our social and economic fabric, without burdening future generations with debt that cannot be repaid.
A Hawke's Bay Council will have a much more valuable asset base on which to finance local infrastructure improvements in Waipawa or Wairoa than their current two councils could ever offer and, you can rest assured, this will eventually be needed by both places when they grow.
Napierites who boast about their solvency don't mention the massive amount of land gifted to them by the 1931 earthquake. Let's not get into the problems that might occur after the next quake, when much of the city's former swampland - now carelessly reclaimed and gradually being built upon - turns into a repetition of Christchurch and its liquefaction woes.
Fortress Napierites also ignore the fact that when their city was flattened, Hastings, the Bay and indeed the rest of the country pitched in to pay for their rebuild. Some people in Napier have been truculent, aggressive and ungrateful ever since.
Opponents to reform who argue on the basis of debt overlook the fact that they will become owners not only of all debt and the underlying assets, but those in Central Hawke's Bay and Wairoa will also become shareholders of our regional airport.
Fault number 2:
- The next lot will be worse than what we've got.
As the record of blunders and wasted money conclusively proves, what we have is pretty bad. A vote against change means a vote for continued fragmentation, inconsistency, the frittering away of public wealth and the silly civic squabbling that has become a century-old national embarrassment for us. But at least it wouldn't change anything.
It is certain that reform will not stop rate rises. However, it should help to control them. It will produce "bigger" local government - but never on the scale of Auckland's, and probably not much larger than the combined workforce we have now. Some suggest astronomical sums to produce a common computerised system. That just proves the current ones don't join up, and it suggests a certain hopelessness among voters. That still does not justify rejection of change. It merely presents a challenge.
But if change is accepted, at least we citizens, all our businesses and all the bureaucrats will be singing from the same song-sheet.
Change could result in more powerful but equally incompetent leaders to those we have suffered. However, the stakes will be higher for anyone taking on such increased responsibility. They will have 150,000 people to answer to, instead of perhaps just 5000.
Fears are no excuse for thoughtlessly rejecting change.
Voters might have to get more involved, not just with ticking a box in a referendum vote for or against.
Some naysayers appear to think that it's not a good idea to vote, because it just encourages others to get into power, waste the ratepayers' money and then ignore the voters' opinions.
Such people - if they ever had it - have lost the will to change, or even get interested in the possibility of a change in which they own the rights and obligations to have a continuing influence.
If we honestly believe that the Devil you know is better than the one you don't, and that because things have been so bad for so long they can never be changed except for the worse, we might as well tear up our referendum papers and apply for a resident's visa in North Korea.
-Brian Mackie is a Napier-based businessman and writer.
