Tracey O’Callaghan - Councillor
Opposes amalgamation.
What is your position on the draft proposal and, importantly, why?
Status Quo with enhancements such as Wairarapa Committee to work with GWRC as well as enhanced shared services and ‘pools of excellence’.
Why? There is room for improvement but I don’t believe structural change is the answer. Costs are likely to be higher than estimated (based on amalgamation evaluations overseas) and savings are likely to be significantly lower. Democracy needs to be kept local. Keep it simple, keep it accessible. Democracy is not about ‘efficiency’ it is about people. We do need increased collaboration and cooperation but that can happen through enhanced shared services models, greater alignment of processes and in agreements on how things are done.
What is a specific issue (a problem or opportunity) that you believe amalgamation will address and how will it address it?
Better relationship and communication with GWRC through the establishment of the Wairarapa Committee. However, we do not need to amalgamate for this to happen.
What tangible benefits could amalgamation bring for ratepayers and how will amalgamation achieve them?
I cannot see many tangible benefits other than a reduction in audit fees! Over time there may be one set of rules and processes for all – but this is possible under Status Quo too if there was increased collaboration.
It may be the case that there would only be one long term plan and one annual plan as against the current three…..BUT each will need to be substantial longer and more complex than is currently the case. For example, Auckland City Council produced a 666 page long term plan in 2016. Their annual report was over 600 pages. So hardly a benefit. Again, it makes democracy more challenging as most people would feel daunted by such huge publications.
What are the risks of amalgamation, and if any, how will they be mitigated?
Cost blow-out during transition is the major risk I believe. All overseas evaluations of amalgamations have shown that costs ALWAYS are higher than estimated. Systems and processes are more complex than anticipated and IT is nearly always significantly more complex – in the short term many of the current systems may be similar but once rating systems are aligned there is likely to be significant cost. Unsure how this can be mitigated other than maintain three councils.
Cost savings are estimated based on current long term plans but these won’t exist if the Councils are combined. A new LTP will be drawn up with unknown costs. It would largely be a leap of faith.
Each town lobbying for a ‘piece of the pie’ and being unable to agree on where resources are spent and services located. This has been the case in many Australian amalgamations particularly in large areas with relatively sparse populations as is the case here.
Larger organisations tend to have more layers of bureaucracy. Senior managers, managers, team leaders, and staff – accountability is reduced and staffing costs increased. Auckland Council has increased its staffing costs by $300million since 2012. Whilst the Auckland population has increased also over this time it is difficult to justify such an increase in staffing costs. The same, relatively, could happen here.
The three councils are all relatively flat structures thus ensuring access to the decision makers. Having pools of excellence across the three councils and sharing these will reduce duplication and ensure expertise is available when needed. A combined Strategic Workforce Plan could assist in efficient HR strategies.
Accessibility – whilst the local communities will have community boards, fewer people will have access to Council due to geographic distance. Being able to speak to the Mayor or a Councilor
will not be as easy as it currently is. The only way to mitigate this would be to rotate Council meetings around the District and have regularly scheduled clinics for people to access the Mayor and/or Councilors.
Representation – currently there is high caliber, diverse representation across the three councils and in the last election each council had a large choice of candidates. The S Wairarapa Community Boards do not attract such high numbers of candidates. Who will want to be on council and community boards and who is elected, will have a huge bearing on the effectiveness of one council. Currently elected councilors can hold down employment or run a small business AND be a Councilor. It is highly unlikely that this would be the case under a combined council and yet, under the Remuneration Authority pay scales, the Councilors would attract annual rem of around $30K. In order to properly represent the communities Councillors would need more expenses, and in some cases, vehicles.
Community Boards as well as the rural standing committee would need delegated authority as well as appropriate resources (staff and budget) to appropriately represent their communities. It is also likely that, in order to attract people to stand for these positions, the remuneration would need enhancing from that currently recommended in the Remuneration Authority payscales.
