I believe this group has failed to make a compelling case for a total reorganisation that would prove onerous, stressful, remote, costly and ultimately unfit for purpose.
Alternatively, if our citizens decide that local government works best when delivered close to our diverse communities, then the regional council is well placed to support a standing committee of local council leaders and independent members responsible for a high-level Regional Master Plan.
I see this as the most efficient and cost-effective way to set and budget for regional priorities, while maintaining our high levels of local service delivery. The proposed Regional Master Plan would incorporate HPUD, a 30-year blueprint for sustainable regional urban development.
This is already operative and Dr James Rowe is currently developing the other essential component, the Regional Economic Development Strategy (REDS) in conjunction with business Hawke's Bay. It is totally unnecessary to have a new three-tiered governance structure consisting of more paid elected and non-elected members than we have currently.
The amalgamation brigades' often-repeated catchcry that we do not need five chairs/mayors and five chief executives ignores the fact the five proposed local boards, plus the Maori Advisory Board, the Regional Resources Board and the Regional Development Board will each need chairs, secretarial services and management. This is in addition to the super council mayor, 18 councillors, a $400,000-a-year CE and management for the four proposed "service centres".
The other main argument of the amalgamation lobby group is that the different rules of each council impede regional growth opportunities. Napier's and Hastings' district plans were harmonised where practical in 2014.
The rules that differ are zone based and would remain so under a super council. For example, noise levels in the Whakatu/Tomoana industrial area would be inappropriate for industrial activity in Ahuriri. Growers' rights to provide seasonal accommodation for up to 50 workers on site in the HDC district plan are not fit for purpose in Napier city.
ABHB complained the different rules made putting up their pro-amalgamation signs cumbersome but signage regulations need to be zone based to recognise heritage, urban, industrial and rural variables. In my 14 years' experience as a hearings commissioner/chair, I have not heard a single RMA consent application from an applicant that was making a parallel application to another council. Claims to the contrary are yet another ABHB "red herring".
Network Utilities do make standard national template applications during district plan reviews but the rules are harmonised with other councils.
The ABHB doomsayers also regularly claim that our region is bottom of the New Zealand socio-economic statistics. Not so, says the June 2015 ASB performance scoreboard. The fact is that only five regions in the nation exceed our current three-star rating.
I am disappointed that far too often strong personalities, instead of robust advocacy, have dominated the amalgamation debate but believe that ample factual information is available for all citizens to make an informed decision.
-Tony Jeffery is a Napier City councillor
-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.
