Opinion - The Great Amalgamation Debate

Tasman Councillor Judene Edgar wades into the fray with a passionate riposte for Aldo Miccio.


While I generally find the airing of dirty laundry through the media distasteful, the one-sided reporting around the amalgamation petition, and the associated misleading information, has me incensed enough to write a response.

Aldo is smart and playing a clever game. If you throw enough money at something, you can generally get what you want. With Hands Up busy raising funds to support his campaign and no set end date to the signature collection period, his chances of success at getting the required number of signatures is very high.

With the wording on the petition changing every time I see it, your average punter could easily be led to believe the clichés that have been bandied about that it is “a fair, independent review of options” or the opportunity to have a “choice about the best governance model for our region, once and for all” or “your chance to have the best governance model to move the Nelson-Tasman region forward”.

All of this is far from the facts of what the petition seeks to do, as well as the process that would be undertaken by the Local Government Commission. Oh yes, and let’s not forget my favourite… that this will be “at no cost to the ratepayers”. YEAH RIGHT!

If the petition achieves the number of signatures required, the time and cost to each council of having to verify each name, address and signature alone will run high… and that’s just step one of what would be a very time-consuming and costly exercise.

And what of the costs of an actual amalgamation, if it was to go ahead? The processes to align resource management plans, budgets and totally revamp 10-year plans (let alone reconcile the conflicting rating systems etc) would take years and costs millions of ratepayers’ money. The disruption and distraction from council business would be incredible.

Let’s not be mistaken… the only option the petition is seeking is amalgamation. This was a well-expressed Hands Up platform as well as a personal platform of Mr Miccio. This is a petition seeking one very exact and specific thing – amalgamation. So why all the pretence?

The petition seems to be based on the adage that ‘bigger is better’. We all know of occasions when bigger is better, but we also all know of times when it’s definitely not. When it comes to representation and local government, this is one of those times when bigger is definitely not better.

If bigger was better when it came to governance and representation, then central government would be the most cost-effective and efficient means of representation… and I think very few people would agree that it is.

In pushing for amalgamation on the grounds of the illusive “efficiencies” that Mr Miccio is purporting, then why stop at Nelson-Tasman? We could amalgamate with Marlborough, another neighbour that shares a lot more than a geographic boundary with Nelson and Tasman (one of his key arguments for amalgamation). In that case, perhaps we should amalgamate the entire South Island, or better still… we could do away with local government altogether.

Most research shows that the best decisions are those made close to the action. In local government that means by the communities most involved. In the same way that there are some efficiencies gained within central government and larger bureaucracies, we know they create a lot of inefficiencies; a lot of functions fall through the cracks because staff aren’t there on the ground floor to understand the needs of the people. And this is where local government is meant to be: ground floor… grass roots… whatever you like to refer to it as.

In general, research demonstrates that larger local authorities tend to be less efficient than medium-sized or smaller authorities. Further, research and evidence has consistently shown that amalgamation usually results in no rates decreases, but to the contrary, often quite high rates increases and increased bureaucracies. So what is it they’re really after?

The better answer would be to look at where the two councils can collaborate and cooperate to make actual cost savings and efficiencies. This model has produced all of the facilities at Saxton Field, the successes of Nelson-Tasman Tourism, funding for the Economic Development Agency and so on. There is a five-page list in Tasman’s 10-year plan of shared services from which each council gains.

Efficiencies won’t always be gained by working cooperatively with Nelson. Tasman also works with Marlborough, Buller and Hurunui (our other neighbouring district councils) as well as West Coast and Canterbury (our other neighbouring regional councils) to gain efficiencies. The Nelson and Tasman councils represent very different areas, so the solutions or efficiencies needed may be quite different (or not there at all), depending upon the problem.

I think instead of asking why people are opposing amalgamation, you need to ask why people are pushing for it so hard. Amalgamation is not the panacea for Nelson’s history of indecision, or a funding mechanism for the Performing Arts Centre… or whatever the motive is. If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?

Opinions expressed on the WildTomato Opinion page may or may not reflect the views of WildTomatoMedia Ltd. Either way we hope they entertain or provoke thought.