Michael Barnett: No need for HB to follow Auckland

Michael Barnett

As communities in Hawke's Bay consider local government reform options, a problem you have is how to avoid drawing the conclusion that amalgamation is the answer because that's what happened in Auckland.

This is a problem because it ignores the fact that Aucklanders had amalgamation imposed on them. Auckland was presented with a political "solution" - amalgamation of its seven councils - and made to justify it through a commission and "Super City" establishment process. Only after a divisive debate was it agreed to establish a tier of local boards, giving some recognition to community concerns about the size of the new city and desire for representation of Auckland's many communities of interest - rural and urban, multi-cultural make-up and distinctive lifestyles.

I note that other regions in New Zealand also have advocates for local government reform who have similarly started off their campaigns with an outcome - amalgamation (or not).

Reinforced by Auckland's experience - basically, the replacement of eight councils with one governing council, seven council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to deliver services and 21 local boards and a mayor with governance powers - I do not believe that starting from and debating a particular outcome builds a constituency. It hasn't in Auckland. Auckland's reform is far from settled and, this year, will see reviews begin on matters such as the role of the CCOs and the powers (or not) of local boards.

Hawke's Bay has a choice - to think outside the square - including investigation of options other than simplistic amalgamation. Instead, building a constituency for change is fundamental if change is to be successful.

The discussion needs to begin with the people of the region based on a premise/or a promise. Does Hawke's Bay have a shared identity that could form the basis of a regional governance brand? Or do citizens agree that the scale of services could be more efficiently managed?

Instead of simply debating amalgamation or not, I suggest you have the opportunity to look at reform solutions in a context of identifying local opportunities and aspirations to do better at leveraging Hawke's Bay's economic development, provide more efficient and affordable core services, or achieve value for money from infrastructure improvements.

If the communities of Hawke's Bay see value in becoming part of a bigger economic region with greater weight and scale, it might then be able to exploit opportunities to trade region-to-region, to attract investment, businesses and jobs.

To do this will require some business and community champions.

That is, I believe that the process for your debate should be about "why" and "what". If we all understand why we are seeking change then what we do will become abundantly apparent.

If why you are seeking change is so you can achieve the best platform off which the people of Hawke's Bay can live, work and play and make the region an attractive place for others to invest, what does this look like?

If you are to have your own conversation of what a new local government platform could best provide each community in the region, then the following considerations might be useful triggers for discussion:

Are your local government structures and processes fit for purpose?

Are services efficient, customer-friendly, timely and there is no duplication?

Are governance arrangements democratic - and offer a voice for all?

Does the local government environment - regulations, taxes and fees - attract and support investment, new businesses to establish and encourage business owners to employ?

Are councils making investments that support the regions strengths and foster innovation/creativity?

Is there a supportive environment that creates events and activity that attracts visitors to Hawke's Bay?

For the sake of this discussion, if Hawke's Bay is to provide that best platform for all, what is the role of local government - what is the most efficient structure, size, activity and partnership?

Because you have multiple councils, I am suggesting it is important that you don't automatically jump to the conclusion that therefore an Auckland-like amalgamation is the answer.

Around the world, we have seen a reduction in costs and size of councils and reduced duplication through smart business relationships - these should be explored.

In other areas, we have seen amalgamations deliver reduced community voice and democracy - this should be avoided.

The debate should not be about amalgamation. The debate in the first instance should be to clarify the aspirations of Hawke's Bay citizens - once this is done, you will then have greater clarity on what needs to happen and how.

You need to have your own conversations on what the best governance platform for moving forward might look like - and then take action.

#Michael Barnett is chief executive of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

#Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz.