Bruce Bisset: Councils not drivers of economy

Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet. Photo: Warren Buckland

Apparently a significant proportion - perhaps a majority - of Hawke's Bay people believe their councils wield such enormous influence that simply by putting them all together we could iron out disputes, kick-start the economy, and reform our languishing-near-bottom poverty statistics in one fell swoop.

This is, frankly, utter nonsense.

In truth, in the hierarchy of "economic drivers" the five councils of Hawke's Bay " Wairoa, Napier, Hastings, Central, and the regional council - are relatively small beer. Well behind the agriculture, manufacturing and service industries, and indeed central government departments (schools, health, police and so on) in collective assets, turnover and staff within the region.

And that's aside from the fact councils are not businesses per se, no matter how much they might like to flash themselves up in simulacrum of the latest corporate model.

They are regulators: overseers and monitors and enforcers of central government and their own local regulations.

They do not make products to sell, nor are they profit-driven - at least, not in the conventional sense. Yes, they often own " on behalf of their ratepayers " major infrastructure (Napier Port, Ahuriri Airport) plus land holdings (forest, rental housing) which they use to generate monies to underwrite their operations, and they charge for their regulatory services; but the majority of a council's income comes from a direct tax on its citizens.

This is not a profitable business model; it's equivalent to a loss-making company requiring its shareholders to prop it up every year in order for it to continue.

Now, here's the real news: amalgamating the Bay's councils will not change that model one iota. It will probably not even lessen the amount ratepayers must pay each year to keep it functional; indeed I'll bet they will pay more.

It certainly won't change the fact that a council is a regulator, not a commercial enterprise.

Oh, sure, it may allow for some small adjustments here and there that result in people getting a better deal for a consent (saving some time and/or money) but such savings will be minor at best, because despite all the talk about differences in approach and efficiencies to be made, at base all the existing councils already do things more-or-less the same. Because government regulation says they must.

Why would you think that a regulatory body, limited by government constraints, will through some miracle be able to facilitate a groundswell of economic change when, other than as a regulator, it is almost completely disconnected from the machinations of capitalism at large?

And when, moreover, its attempts to engage in such machinations - witness the Ruataniwha water storage scheme - result in disastrous white elephants that burden citizens with an ever-increasing mountain of debt.

So, to those 44 per cent of respondents who voted "amalgamation" in this newspaper's online poll as the primary factor that will energise the Bay, and any others carping on about how much economic mileage there will be out of that process, I say, let's get this plain and clear right now: amalgamating our councils will do sweet bugger-all to help our region economically.

There may well be some benefits. There will most certainly also be losses - local democracy perhaps the most important.

But by all means, if you must, amalgamate. Just don't try to blame the new unitary council for failing to improve our lot. Because that's not their job.

Whose job is it? Partly central government, to incentivise regionalism; but more so the business community, to invest and promote. I note they're the ones most ardently looking for scapegoats - doubtless to paper over that they are the real failures here.

-Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.