Top guns battle over amalgamation details

July 25th, 2011
[by David Armstrong]

As the Council amalgamation debate gains traction, opinions from two leading protagonists got down to the fine detail stage as the Tasman District Council published its concerns and Golden Bay political figure Joe Bell provided detailed rebuttal on most of TDC's points.

Since the Local Government Commission's release of its draft reorganisation plan five weeks ago, based around the consultant's Strateg.Ease report, opponents of the proposal to amalgamate the councils - and the TDC themselves - have been vocal in their concerns that the report is so full of "errors" that it would need to be rewritten before voters could make a properly "informed choice".

Such an assertion has meant that TDC had to back the claim with a list of such errors, and this they did late last week with an open letter sent to the LGC listing item by item what they considered were "a number of factual errors, omissions and unsubstantiated assertions in the reports, particularly the Strateg.Ease report, that we wish to bring to the attention of the Commission". The full letter can be read here (labelled Appendix 1).

Joe Bell, whose opinions have been published widely and particularly on the debate forum on this website, yesterday provided Motueka Online with analysis and letters he has sent to Tasman District mayor and councillors, examining the council's assertions item by item.

Council's letter to the LGC said the "factual errors, omissions and unsubstantiated assertions, particularly in the Strateg.Ease report, ... may lead the public to draw inappropriate, and at times false, conclusions about the existing situation with regard to the provision of good local government in the Nelson and Tasman region/district".

The most significant items which TDC challenged related to four areas, although many other factors were also challenged. (The details and justifications are too lengthy to set out here, but interested readers are encouraged to use this link to read the full letter (Appendix 1) and this link for the detailed, item-by item report.

The ability of the existing local authorities to borrow in order to perform its duties. "Council has grave concerns about the number of errors in the debt figures and information within the Strateg.Ease report, particularly around the use of the inaccurate current debt figures.
The extent of the proposed savings as a result of the predicted reduction in staff numbers. "The Strateg.Ease report states that it is possible to make a gross saving of $4.7 million, through a significant number of staff reductions across the two Councils. In the summary it assesses the savings from this area as $3.7 million. This is partially offset by an acknowledged but underestimated increase of $400,000 in costs of elected members." Council's main complaint is the use by the consultants of benchmark figures against the staff employed by Tauranga, Palmerston North and Dunedin City Councils, which "are not unitary authorities".

They also complain that many of the costs are not identified or quantified, such as transition costs, the additional costs of an increased number of elected members and the extra support and infrastructure they will require, and the cost of integrating planning documents, bylaws, long term plans, etc.
The extent to which the combined region is suffering from the local authorities existing inabilities to advocate regionally or grasp opportunities. "The report fails to identify where there have been lost opportunities to the region and why those opportunities have been lost. It appears that the report authors have picked up unsubstantiated views raised in submissions. The report should be more specific on the opportunities that have been lost through having two Councils rather than one. It should demonstrate that the specific reasons for these opportunities not being taken up are a result of having two Councils rather than one."
Impact on rates. "Nowhere in the reports is there a clear discussion on the impact of rate changes on the ratepayers in Tasman District or Nelson City. The omission of some scenario analysis of the rating impact is a major flaw in the reports."

Council said it regretted that the consultants "never came back to the two Councils to check the accuracy of their interpretation of the information provided or to ensure it was used in the correct context. While some of the matters raised in the Appendix could be construed as fairly minor and individually may not be significant in terms of the conclusions, we have included them as collectively they paint an incorrect picture."

Council resolved at its meeting on 19 July to "ask the Local Government Commission to withdraw the Strateg.Ease report; .... then re-issue the report, undertake publicity that the corrected report is available and extend the submission deadline".

In his open letter to Tasman District mayor and councillors, Joe Bell (who was the chairman of the Golden Bay Community Board until last year) said "the vast majority of matters raised by TDC do not stand scrutiny." He asked them to rescind the council resolution to complain to the LGC, to withdraw its review of the Strateg.Ease report it has sent to the LGC, and undertake publicity explaining why this was necessary.

"I have done this because I believe the target audience of TDC in casting aspersions on the report is not the LGC but the voters of Tasman," he wrote. "In my opinion, TDC is attempting to influence the draft re-organisation proposal process when, at this stage of the process, they should be having no more influence than any other participant."

As with TDC's report, Joe's analysis and rebuttal is item by item and so cannot be listed here, but you can read it by clicking here (and reference it back to the TDC document)

In brief overview, Joe said that up to about a dozen times he agreed with TDC that the report needed justification or correction by the consultants, and that this was a legitimate purpose of the current submission stage. He also pointed out many times over that the Strateg.Ease report was based on facts supplied to it by TDC and Nelson Council, and that if there were any errors then it was both councils' responsibility to fix them.

Joe's most consistent comment, however, was that a large majority of TDC's complaints were over a matter of opinion rather than substantial fact. He felt that TDC were not trying to correct errors so much as trying to influence Tasman district voters by providing alternative opinions.

>> , to be added to the page. [If this link doesn't work, use this form instead]

[ Return ]
[ Other news articles ]

We wish to thank these local community-minded businesses who generously sponsor our site. They recognise the value of supporting this community asset, and in return Motueka Online is pleased to use and recommend their services whenever appropriate.

Ray White Motueka, Parkes Automotive, Motueka Floral Studio, Nelson Building Society