Bay of Plenty councils: Eastern Bay mayors hit out against amalgamation talks
He said there were seven councils represented around the forum table, which meant seven times the overhead.
'We can wait five years and have the Government do it for us or we can be proactive and say, let's look at it.'
Drysdale will also be speaking to a remit put to this week's Local Government New Zealand conference by Tauranga City Council for a review of local government arrangements to achieve better balance. The remit was supported by LGNZ's Metro Sector councils.
Whakatāne Mayor Victor Luca said he could find no evidence that amalgamation of councils would result in lower rates.
He cited two academic studies published in the past three years that pointed against any efficiencies being achieved by amalgamation.
A 2022 report called Does Size Matter, from independent Crown organisation the Infrastructure Commission, found little evidence of cost efficiencies from larger local governments.
The report looked at whether council size and structure affected road maintenance, building consents and council overhead costs.
Tauranga mayor Mahé Drysdale at a Tauranga City Council meeting. Photo / David Hall
'Our analysis suggests that population size neither decreases nor increases the cost to provide these three services,' the report stated.
Luca also referenced a 2024 economic paper by University of Otago professor Tom Stannard and TDB Advisory's Philip Barry about scale efficiency gains in electricity distribution.
The paper looked at public and private organisations and found that potential gains from scale alone, without considering population density, were very limited.
'The only way that reducing the number of slices in a pie can result in any benefit is if the pie also shrinks,' Luca said.
'I'm actually quite annoyed that Drysdale makes the argument that everybody trots out without evidence. The real evidence is there, and he completely ignores it.'
Ōpōtiki Mayor David Moore, Kawerau Mayor Faylene Tunui and Whakatāne Mayor Victor Luca are in agreement that amalgamation with other Bay of Plenty councils is not in the best interests of the Eastern Bay. Photo / Supplied
He felt Whakatāne district would be the loser in any amalgamation arrangement with the wider Bay of Plenty.
'We represent 16% of the population of the Bay of Plenty, and you only have to look at how we fared in receiving funding through the Regional Transport Committee. We only got 1% of the budget request allocated to us.'
He felt there were efficiencies that could be made through the councils working more closely together.
'For example, we're all using different enterprise software. That is something that could easily be fixed without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.'
Ōpōtiki Mayor David Moore said he felt Drysdale should be talking to his community about how they felt before he started talking about amalgamating councils.
Whakatāne would be the loser in a Bay of Plenty council amalgamation, Mayor Victor Luca says. Photo / Andrew Warner
'The first thing you learn in local government is you need to talk to your community first, before we make plans.'
Moore was doubtful that amalgamation would create efficiencies, pointing out a number of failures of central government in providing police, education and health services to the region.
'That day [of the mayoral forum] we had a presentation showing we are 1700 doctors short in New Zealand.
'We've got a net increase in police of less than 20.'
He also referenced the recent reduction in gynaecological and obstetrics services that sees pregnant women having to be rushed to Tauranga for emergencies, and Ōpōtiki College having issues with black mould in classrooms last year.
He said there had been a great deal of work done recently on possible funding solutions for councils.
'For example, the GST content of rates that gets forwarded to central. A tax on a tax, some say.
'There is no resistance to working smarter and sharing services wherever possible, but scale does not always mean saving for the community - something to think about on your next trip to the supermarket or when paying your latest power or insurance bills.
'The same out of control costs have hit councils too, which does nothing to help keeping costs down.'
Kawerau Mayor Faylene Tunui.
Kawerau Mayor Faylene Tunui said her community was against amalgamation.
'Mayor Drysdale can speak for Tauranga, but we know our communities are firmly rooted in the Eastern Bay of Plenty and that's where our people want their representation to be.
'Our three councils are busy implementing our joint spatial plan and joint economic development plan. That's our priority, not theoretical amalgamation discussions,' Tunui said.
What other Bay mayors say
Western Bay of Plenty Mayor James Denyer previously told Local Democracy Reporting he did not believe his community supported amalgamating with Tauranga.
Rotorua Mayor Tania Tapsell said councils should not be afraid of change but 'negative experiences' from health and polytechnic mergers made communities wary.
Bay of Plenty Regional Council chairman Doug Leeder said work needed to be done to understand where and how services were best delivered - nationally, regionally and locally - to inform the long-running debate.
- Additional reporting by Alisha Evans
- LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Cutting red tape key to NZ's infrastructure success
These days we find it difficult to get consent for a solar farm. Not even build it, just to get permission to build it. Click here for an alternative view: Julie Anne Genter: Time to prioritise public good over private gain In my view, New Zealand is at an inflection point and we have two choices. One option is we grow slowly – or not at all. We muddle along, take years to make tough decisions, react to things as they come up, and just largely accept the status quo. I call this managed mediocrity. At worst, it is managed decline. The other option is that we make the tough decisions that successive governments have put in the too-hard basket — on planning, housing markets, transport pricing, and more. We take advantage of our extraordinary natural competitive advantages – like cheap, renewable energy – to accelerate growth, increase our standard of living and make us better off than we are today. Achieving this prosperous future won't just magically happen. As I've said before, we need to start saying 'yes' a lot more, and 'no' a lot less. This is especially true for infrastructure. Chris Bishop. Photo / Getty Images Throwing money at the problem won't fix things, because our current system is too inefficient. Despite being in the top 10% of high-income countries for infrastructure spend, we are in the bottom 10% for outcomes. In reality, this looks like poor bang for our buck, funding gaps, cost overruns, delays, and – often – worn-down assets that don't do their job. It isn't good enough. The only way to fix our problems is to get the underlying system settings right, and that's what I've focused on as Infrastructure Minister: developing a National Infrastructure Plan, improving funding and financing, sorting out consenting and planning, improving education and health infrastructure, and strengthening asset management and resilience. These priorities are in response to what I've heard from industry and infrastructure experts, both in New Zealand and overseas. National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) Last month, the Infrastructure Commission released the draft NIP. As Minister for Infrastructure, I hear regularly that what New Zealand needs is a long-term infrastructure plan that transcends political cycles. I agree. A plan will give the private sector more certainty so that they can invest in people and equipment. But a plan is only as good as it's execution. So, the NIP will only be successful if it is – at least in part – accepted and adopted across successive governments over the long term. It's worth noting that this isn't our first plan. New Zealand had infrastructure plans in 2010, 2011, and 2015. Depressingly, some recommendations in these older plans are identical to those put forward in this plan, more than a decade later. I'm thinking of things like agencies completing 10-year capital plans and making better use of pricing tools. What differentiates this plan is that it has been developed independently by the Infrastructure Commission – separate from the government of the day. The NIP is not this Government's plan. It's New Zealand's plan. Each political party in Parliament was offered a briefing on the NIP. I'm really pleased that most parties accepted the offer and have had one or more meetings with the Commission. Building greater consensus on infrastructure is, unfortunately, not as simple as different political parties getting in a room and convincing each other of the other's view. That's not realistic. Instead, consensus will be enabled by strong systems and institutions, robust investment frameworks, high-quality evidence of our infrastructure needs, and advocacy for projects and policies from a better-informed public. That's what this plan is about. People also often say, we need a bipartisan infrastructure pipeline, as if that will solve all problems. We do have a robust infrastructure pipeline. The Commission has been running it for more than five years, and it's been progressively improved over that time. The pipeline has more than 8000 initiatives underway and in planning, from 114 contributing organisations. It represents more than $200 billion in investment value – with over $110b of the pipeline having a funding source confirmed. I suspect that almost all of the projects underway right now are supported by everyone in Parliament. It's the high-profile and high-cost disagreements that make the headlines. But it's the low-profile and often low-cost projects that actually make New Zealand. My own view is that we need to move away from the rhetoric of needing a bipartisan pipeline and instead build bipartisan consensus on the idea that governments of all flavours should use best-practice to plan, select, fund and finance, deliver, and look after infrastructure. That's not the case at the moment and it's what I'm working so hard to fix. Improving Infrastructure Funding and Financing An important priority is improving infrastructure funding and financing. Currently, infrastructure is primarily paid for by taxpayers or ratepayers. This makes sense for some infrastructure like schools and hospitals, but our reliance on this blunt approach has led to challenges like congestion, run-down assets, and the unresponsive provision of enabling infrastructure – contributing to unaffordable housing. In 2024, the Government released a suite of frameworks and guidance – like Treasury's Funding and Financing Framework and a new market-led proposal process – to help the Crown be a smarter owner and purchaser of infrastructure services. This year, I announced five changes to New Zealand's funding and financing toolkit including improving the IFF Act and shifting councils from Development Contributions to a new Development Levy system. These changes will move us to a future state where councils can fully recover the costs of housing growth, and where infrastructure providers can recover costs of significant and city-shaping projects. And today, at the Building Nations summit, I will be announcing a shift in our approach to road user charges. Improving the consenting framework Arguably, the biggest improvement we are making to the infrastructure system is fixing the Resource Management Act (RMA). Consenting takes too long, costs way too much, and makes delivering the infrastructure we need too difficult. We are on track to replace the RMA with new legislation next year. Our new system will be effects-based, embrace standardised zoning and be far more permissive and enabling – while also protecting the environment. An independent analysis by Castalia estimated the new system could reduce compliance and administrative costs by $14.8b – potentially removing about 10 Transmission Gullys-worth of red tape from the economy. It will be a game changer. Better asset management is a key recommendation of the draft NIP. Everyone knows if you don't paint the weatherboards on your house, the wood will rot. Billion-dollar infrastructure is fundamentally no different. Unfortunately, due to decades of diverted maintenance spending, lack of asset registers, and lack of asset management plans, we have schools with leaking roofs, sewage leaks in our hospitals, asbestos in police stations, service outages of commuter rail, and mouldy defence accommodation. Strengthening asset management and resilience In May this year we started a work programme that will improve asset management in central government. We are considering fundamental changes such as legislatively requiring agencies to prepare and publish long-term Asset Management and Investment Plans, and to report on their performance. Regulated utilities and local government are legislatively required to do these things – I don't see why central government thinks it should hold others to a higher standard than it does itself. A couple of weeks ago the Minister for Economic Growth and I released an infrastructure update showing that more than $6b of government-funded construction is due to start between now and Christmas. Workers will start construction on $3.9b of roading projects – like Melling and Ōtaki to north of Levin, $800 million of school property projects, and a range of health projects and other government buildings. Some people said that these projects were 'already announced'. They missed the point. A non-trivial number of these projects were funded all the way back in 2016-2020 – but never started construction. As Government, we are getting on with building infrastructure — not just announcing it. And we're fixing the system, to help build and maintain better infrastructure for all Kiwis. Chris Bishop is the Minister for Infrastructure and National MP for Hutt South.
Scoop
2 days ago
- Scoop
Public Water, Private Profits? Tauranga Vote On Waters Done Well Raises Alarm Bells Over Secrecy, Power, & Past Agendas
Tauranga, NZ - 3 August 2025 This Tuesday, Tauranga City Council will vote on whether to opt into the Government's new "Waters Done Well" water services reform framework, a deceptively simple decision with massive consequences for local democracy, public ownership, and the future cost of living for every Tauranga resident. While officials are pushing the proposal as a "streamlining" of services, watchdogs and local advocates say it's anything but. 'This isn't just pipes and pumps, this is about whether public control of water remains public at all,' said Erika Harvey, spokesperson for Lobby for Good. 'We've seen this play before, dress up centralisation as 'efficiency,' then open the door to corporate control behind closed doors.' A Legacy of Sell-Offs - Are We Repeating the Past? Todd McClay, Minister for State-Owned Enterprises, has denied any intent to privatise water. But scrutiny is growing over his links to one of New Zealand's most notorious sell-offs, the 1990s electricity sector privatisations overseen by his father, Roger McClay, under the National government. 'Let's not forget what happened when electricity was deregulated and handed to the market: prices soared, and public power was lost, literally and politically,' Harvey said. 'Now his son is overseeing a framework that removes water from councils, centralises decision-making, and could make it far easier to privatise later.' What's at Stake in Tuesday's Vote? Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council will vote on whether to opt in to the Government's new 'Waters Done Well' framework, a decision that will lock in the future of local water services for decades. This vote isn't just procedural. It decides whether our local drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure remains accountable to the communities who use and pay for it, or whether it's handed over to a new centralised entity with limited public oversight. Councils hand over key water assets to new centralised "service delivery organisations". Local accountability is diluted, with communities having little say over how water is managed Once transferred, these assets could be harder to return to public control Governance structures are vague, with key decisions potentially made by political appointees or private advisers Cr. Crowther's Warning: 'A Trojan Horse for Corporatisation' In a must-read Substack post this week, Councillor Glen Crowther called the proposal what it really is: "a Trojan Horse for corporatisation." He outlines how the new entities will operate more like commercial utilities than community services, despite still being technically owned by councils. Cr. Crowther also questions why the Government is rushing councils to opt-in without clear public consultation, funding guarantees, or transparent rules for asset control. His analysis echoes concerns already raised around the Marine Precinct, Durham Street, and other high-value local asset deals: the public is being shut out of decisions that will shape the city for generations. The Big Questions Tauranga Deserves Answers To As councillors prepare to cast their votes, Lobby for Good is demanding they publicly address: Why is this being rushed with so little public scrutiny? What protections will exist to stop privatisation by stealth in the future? Why are ratepayers being asked to give up control without guarantees on price, quality, or transparency? How will this governance structure avoid the same failings seen in past council-controlled organisations (CCOs)? And most importantly: who stands to profit, and who stands to lose? If this is the wrong decision, who is held accountable? 'This vote isn't just about water, it's about whether Tauranga is governed for the public good or private gain,' said Harvey. 'Once control is lost, it's near impossible to get back. We've learned that lesson the hard way. The question now is; will our council learn from it, or repeat it?' Call to Action Lobby for Good is urging Tauranga residents to contact their elected members, speak up before Tuesday's vote, and demand full transparency and public consultation before any irreversible decisions are made.
RNZ News
5 days ago
- RNZ News
Councillors tired of being ‘beaten up' and blamed by central government
The South Wairarapa District Council doesn't want to be "the whipping boy" of central government. Photo: LDR / Emily Ireland Councils feel "beaten up" and blamed for problems outside their control as tensions rise between them and central government. South Wairarapa councillor Colin Olds made the remarks after councils were once again in the firing line of central government. In a statement yesterday, Local Government Minister Simon Watts said some households were getting frustrated by unfair rate hikes during the cost-of-living crisis. It followed comments at the recent Local Government NZ (LGNZ) conference, where Watts compared councils to children and suggested that letting them do what they wanted might lead to bad choices. Olds, who attended the conference, told his colleagues and LGNZ representatives that he was disappointed that councils continued to get "beaten up by central government" over things that were out of their control. Councils had defended rising rates as they were dealing with increased infrastructure costs, unfunded mandates, insurance, and inflation. LGNZ chief executive Susan Freeman-Greene said tensions between local and central government were "a challenge", and that councils bore the impact of frequent changes to government policy. "We all know that in opposition, parties are really strong localists and in government they tend to be much greater centralists and much more likely to want to constrain and tell you what to do and tell you how badly you are doing to deflect some of the challenges they are facing," she said. LGNZ chief advisor Ranjani Ponnuchetty said governments of all persuasions "need a natural enemy". "It's extremely unfortunate that we are here now and somehow seem to be that focal point at this point in time. "No matter the government, no one will take the blame. "No government will ever accept responsibility for the consequences of anything." In response to the comments made at the South Wairarapa meeting, Watts said when it came to spending, the government had been clear that councils needed to prioritise the basics - essential services like roading, water, infrastructure, and rubbish. "There are different councils in different positions across the country - some councils have signalled through their annual plans quite significant increases in rates, and others have not. "The bottom line and most important outcome is ensuring ratepayers get value from money for the service that they pay for. "That's also why we're working at pace on a potential rates capping model to save people money. "Cost of living is the number one issue many New Zealanders are facing right now and we're committed to providing relief - I intend to bring options to Cabinet later this year for consideration." Meanwhile, councillor Alistair Plimmer said the only way forward to fix the "mess" was a complete rewrite of the Local Government Act, instead of continuous tweaks that could result in "a dog's breakfast". He said the Local Government Act was not fit-for purpose, and took no account of the realities of small rural councils. He urged LGNZ to take matters into their own hands and do the rewrite themselves to make it "fit for the next century". "If you don't do it, who is going to?" he asked LGNZ representatives at this week's council meeting. "There is no incentive for central government to do this. They like the whipping boy." Freeman-Greene agreed with Plimmer that the Act was "out of date" and "complex". "It's been added to and amended from, and is continuously tweaked," she said. "We need an Act that is fit-for-purpose and future focused and clear. "Ideally, also supported across the house so that we are not flip-flopping between different intents of what your role is." At the recent LGNZ conference, councils passed a remit calling for a review of the current functions and governance arrangements of local government. - LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air
