Public urged to make submissions on proposal
Panel and some community board members at Monday evening’s meeting. Photo: Neil Wilson.
The messages at Monday’s public meeting were very clear – if you have a view on the proposed union between Nelson and Tasman, you should make a submission on it before 19 August. Then, when the voting takes place in October, it is imperative that you vote.
The meeting, organised by the Golden Bay Community Board, was addressed by a panel made up of Michael Coles and Gavin Beattie from the Local Government Commission (LGC); Aldo Miccio, mayor of Nelson; Richard Kempthorne, mayor of Tasman; Derek Shaw, Nelson city councillor; Judene Edgar, Tasman district councillor; and Philip Woollaston. Mr Woollaston was the last chairman of the Golden Bay County Council. He was also formerly mayor of Nelson and later minister of Local Government.
Mr Miccio spoke both as the person who initiated last year’s petition on the subject of the union and as the mayor of Nelson. He described the process as “de-amalgamation”, explaining that the increased powers delegated to community boards under the proposed union meant that “bottom-up governance” will be returned to Golden Bay.
Mr Kempthorne spoke about the “key relationships” between community boards and the council as it currently exists. He expressed a concern about the smaller diverse communities in Tasman losing representation. Under the proposed union, Golden Bay would have one councillor instead of the two it has at present.
He also referred to the “lost opportunities” for region-wide co-operation which the LGC mentions in its background documentation, highlighting the 44 current examples of co-operation between Nelson and Tasman.
“If the two councils survive this process I’ll lead a serious look into those lost opportunities.”
Mr Kempthorne spoke about a letter that his council was intending to send to the LGC pointing out errors in some of its documents. At its meeting the next day council resolved to send the letter and ask the LGC to correct the errors, both on its website and to the public. A small excerpt from the letter is published later in this report.
Mr Shaw said that the Nelson city councillors would continue to support the proposed union because of what they perceived as the advantages of “single-body decision-making, enhanced stakeholder participation and enhanced capacity”.
Judene Edgar said that her council had not yet formulated a collective view on the proposal, so she was simply expressing her personal opinion.
She spoke about “significant errors” in the LGC documents and compared the level of detail and the complexity of the task of combining the two councils to the MMP referendum in 1993.
“Do we grab at this ad hoc process or do we have a more strategic look at the options?”
Philip Woollaston spoke in favour of the proposal, expressing particular enthusiasm for the expanded delegated powers of community boards.
“If the voters go with the proposed union, we need to ensure that the boards have the expanded powers, and then we need to elect people to the unified council who have big enough vision to see their job in a region-wide context.”
During question time people were interested in the role of the transition committee that will devise processes for the meshing of the two councils’ operations. Time and again members of the panel reminded those present to make submissions to the LGC on this and other details of the proposed union.
People were also interested in the increased delegations for community boards, the amount of debt each council would bring to a union, and especially the effects of the union on rates. Nelson City uses a land value-based system to set its rates while Tasman uses a capital value-based system. The LGC recommends that the capital value-based system should be applied under the unified council, and some people expressed concerns about the effect on rates of the greater capital value of the Tasman District.
Bjarne Vandeskog wondered what might happen if the union did not go ahead. He asked Mr Kempthorne: “Can you promise us the same level of delegation to community boards as the proposal recommends?”
Mr Kempthorne replied that he could not commit future councils, but that he was personally committed to the proposed delegations and that he was also open to workable increases in those delegations.
The letter, mentioned above, from council to the LGC contains the following:
“Council has identified a number of factual errors, omissions and unsubstantiated assertions, particularly in the StrategEase report which 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 region.”
In response to another question, Mr Miccio described the level of Nelson council and staff support for the proposal.
“We have had to ask ourselves whether this is something we want to do. Many of the staff are confronting the fact that they may lose their jobs. It’s the same for the councillors. People tell me that they’re supporting the proposed union simply because it’s the right thing to do.”
Golden Bay Community Board chair Carolyn McLellan thanked the crowd of about 130 people for coming out on a cold night and urged everyone to involve themselves and everyone they know in the submission and voting process.
Neil Wilson
