Union debate gets ever murkier

As the debate over whether the Nelson and Tasman councils should merge descends deeper into dispute, Geoff Collett and Alice Cowdrey unravel the latest developments.

Anybody still trying to keep up with the twists and turns of the local government amalgamation debate could be expected to soon be rummaging in the medicine cabinet for their headache pills.

What seemed like a simple enough question whether Nelson and Tasman should have one or two councils is becoming side-tracked into murky, confusing legalistic arguments and sideshows, about breakaway councils for Golden Bay, how wide any investigation into the issue might go, and the finer details about the timeframe any such investigation might involve.

That's not to mention the background politics of who does and doesn't support Nelson businessman and city councillor Aldo Miccio and his petition to force a Local Government Commission inquiry into the amalgamation proposal.

Suspicious minds might wonder whether the growing confusion suits those set against the thought of a Nelson-Tasman union. After all, the more complex and opaque it all becomes, the more likely it is that the public will either switch off or be scared off opting for any change.

When his petition launched, Mr Miccio insisted that he did not want to be drawn into a debate about how the existing councils might be restructured, because of the many unknowns, and the potential for endless speculation and dispute.

Since then, though, others have waded in, including Golden Bay Community Board chairman Joe Bell an ally of sorts for Mr Miccio who has found an outlet for his frustrations with the Tasman District Council by joining the amalgamation petition campaign. He has even suggested that an inquiry could look at a breakaway council for Golden Bay and/or Motueka, writing a letter to The Nelson Mail last week floating that idea.

Tasman Mayor Richard Kempthorne the principal voice against Mr Miccio's petition has seized on such arguments to question the whole petition process. Underlining how finely (and obscurely) the issue is now being argued, Mr Kempthorne has implied that the petition itself is being inaccurately presented to the public.

"... Claims made in the petition and in press releases, stating that the commission will review a range of local governance options, are not correct," Mr Kempthorne said in his own press release.

The petition actually doesn't make any such reference it only calls for "the development of a model for the union" of the two councils. Mr Bell might be flying a kite about breakaway councils, but it is not an idea stated on the petition form Mr Miccio wants people to sign.

The argument, for those who care, revolves around the scope of a Local Government Commission investigation (which would be triggered if Mr Miccio can get the signatures of 10 per cent of electors in both Nelson and Tasman).

The commission chief executive, Donald Riezebos, has made clear that the inquiry would have to stay focused on exploring the proposal posed by the petition, namely that idea of a "union" between the two councils.

It could not start looking at breakaway councils to do that would require somebody successfully launching another petition with that proposal specifically stated, Mr Riezebos says.

But he makes clear that even if it sticks to the "union" question, the commission would still have reasonably wide powers around deciding how the various communities within the region would be best represented under a reorganised council.

That could include, for example, the commission being able to propose new community boards to represent different areas, and even determining what powers those boards should be given.

Mr Kempthorne argued this week that Mr Riezebos had "made it quite clear [to the TDC] that the commission has to concentrate on just two options. Those options are the status quo, or the dissolution of both existing councils and the creation of a new single council."

But Mr Miccio's version of events is that Mr Kempthorne is offering too narrow a view; that the commission's powers will still be wide enough to consider options which don't discriminate against the sparsely populated parts of Tasman.

The TDC has already upset Mr Miccio and others in his camp including some Tasman councillors with its public "guide" offering what Mr Kempthorne describes as a "factual commentary" on the petition.

Mr Miccio has called the guide scaremongering and a misrepresentation.

It makes claims such as that an investigation could cost ratepayers $200,000, and that a single Nelson-Tasman council would leave the existing Murchison-Lakes area without a local councillor.

Even Mr Riezebos has described that latter claim as "speculative", although he says he wants to avoid getting dragged into the debate.

Mr Kempthorne says the no-councillor-for-Murchison line was a "best guess" by TDC chief executive Paul Wylie, who wrote the guide.

Nelson MP Nick Smith is one who is sceptical that such a scenario would ever arise, and he for one would be fighting to ensure the Murchison-Lakes area was properly represented if an amalgamation model was developed.

Dr Smith also challenges the urban-rural divide, which has been central to the TDC's anti-amalgamation stance; dividing the region on such lines is, "a cheap game of parochial politics when the truth is we depend very heavily for our wealth on our rural industries, but equally so, those rural communities use and depend on the services that are provided from ... Richmond, Motueka and Nelson".

Even Mr Riezebos questions the implication in the TDC guide that a union of the two councils would lead to rural communities being disenfranchised: "Obviously they [rural communities] would be part of the bigger mix, but it's not inevitable that they would be controlled by the urbanites."

Mr Kempthorne rejects the suggestion his council has been confusing the debate.

He says the council has been trying to "clarify" the situation, and that the confusion actually lies with people who think Mr Miccio's petition will deliver more than it really can. It is not up to council to tell people what to do, he says, but to inform them of the facts.

Dr Smith, meanwhile, questions the Tasman council's wider strategy. Mr Kempthorne has previously been irritated by suggestions that the Tasman and Nelson councils don't work closely enough, but Dr Smith says that the TDC's decision to pull out of joint planning with the city on transport could come back to haunt it.

While the Government has no interest in getting itself into another local government reorganisation while it has Auckland on its plate, the failure of Nelson and Tasman to work together on something as fundamental as regional transport needs "is just driving the argument towards reform", Dr Smith says.

- © Fairfax NZ News