Ewan McGregor: Rhetoric clouds merger debate

Ewan McGregor

This Talking Point is a comment on the spirit of the rhetoric characterising the debate on amalgamation, rather than to argue the merits of the proposal.

I recently saw this quote by John Stuart Mills: "If mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one, than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind."

There is, of course, more than one advocating amalgamation - opinion seems fairly evenly balanced. However, much in the rhetoric of those believing in the status quo, in spirit at least, seeks to shame the advocates into silence through disparaging the very act of advocacy.

Of this we have seen plenty from Napier Mayor Bill Dalton expressing his opposition to the proposal. Here's a recent example: "The amalgamation debate is a sideshow that is simply diverting attention from the job at hand - bringing increased prosperity to Hawke's Bay."

So advocating amalgamation, though not those opposed to it apparently (it takes two to debate), is damaging Hawke's Bay? CHB Mayor Peter Butler has also claimed that the debate is "damaging" the region. At a Zone 3 Local Government meeting in 2013, Peter announced to the delegates, "If you want to see a region tearing itself apart, come to Hawke's Bay".

The very arch stone of democracy is the free exercise of robust but, hopefully, respectful public discourse on issues of community interest, accommodated by an unrestricted and independent media. How else can the public inform itself on issues, and for their elected governors to subsequently establish policy?

New Zealand is one of just five countries which have enjoyed, and maintained at great cost, 150 years of democracy (they're English-speaking incidentally). This amalgamation debate proves that democracy is alive and well in Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. Let all of us celebrate that fact at least.

Here's another example of Mayor Bill's rhetoric: "The vision of [ABHB] is obvious. They want one council, based in Hastings, which controls Hawke's Bay. They see Hastings as the home to all commercial activity and Napier as the seaside village that you visit on the weekends for a latte or an ice cream. And they don't give a toss about our rural communities." Is this worthy of a public conversation on such a vital issue as this? And there's plenty more like it. Surely we can do better than this.

Yet another aspect of the debate that is relevant to democracy is this: Those active in A Better Hawke's Bay are dismissed as being a "rich elite" motivated by the wish to control an all-embracing council. Since when has being rich meant the forfeiture of your right to public expression of your opinion?

Control of a unitary council will be exactly the same force as currently - the voting public. It is we, whether rich or poor, who have a constitutional right to cast a secret ballot triennially for the candidate/s we want to make decisions on our behalf. And if, after three years, the governors have not performed to the voters satisfaction, then they'll be dismissed.

There's a further tactic employed by those arguing the status quo. It is to prop up the straw man that those advocating change claim a unitary council will be a silver bullet that will solve all our problems.

Here's a recent Talking Point comment by Hastings Councillor Simon Nixon: "Those who think amalgamating our councils into a single administrative juggernaut will fix everything are delusional."

No advocate is making such an all-embracing claim. Their argument is that one united council will better equip us to deal with our considerable problems (the mere citing of our worrisome statistics earns Bill Dalton's condemnation).

Those who disagree with the claim that one council will improve our problem-solving ability are quite entitled to express it. What they have no moral right to do is to blatantly misrepresent that view as a claim of utopia, a fiction that they can then proceed to demolish. If they are confident in the merits of their case, there would be no need for such tactics.

A prime driver for amalgamation is to eliminate the divisiveness that the fragmentation of this region's government encourages, and which has been the albatross around our neck for years.

To this writer, the tone of this debate illustrates this graphically and makes the cause of one united council all the more compelling.

-Ewan McGregor is a former deputy chairman of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

-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.