1. Do you believe HBRC is ‘tough enough’ in enforcing environmental protections when challenging actions (or omissions) by other HB councils and businesses?
HBRC has limited ability to enforce environmental standards on other councils. Fines issued for breaching waste and storm water consents and opposition to poor planning decisions have failed to deter our councils.
Non-compliant storm water discharges, poor upkeep of drinking water infrastructure and non-compliant wastewater treatment by Hawke’s Bay councils and some industries, continue to produce serious harm to the environment and affect people’s health.
Law changes are likely to be the only way to enforce higher environmental protection standards.
2. Current estimates put the cost of all feasible flood control options for the region at around $600 million. How do you believe HBRC should approach this huge challenge … how much is ‘safe enough’?
The cost of adequate flood protection is likely to exceed $1billion. We must increase flood protection to repel a minimum 1 in 200-year weather events. HBRC is considering a range of options including changes to stop banks, nature-based solutions, increased maintenance, adding spillways and flood paths to divert flood water.
3. To help reduce the ratepayer cost of such a major potential scale of flood protection, do you believe HBRC should consider selling down its shares in Napier Port to invest instead in better earning financial assets?
It is inevitable that ratepayers will have to stump up to ensure a 1 in 200- year level of flood protection. Already we are spending $260million on cyclone recovery. HBRC is turning over every stone to find ways of funding this essential work, so it is affordable for ratepayers.
Any sale of the council’s investment in the port must be consulted on as it is a strategic asset. The public will have their say over public ownership, weighing up the benefit of shifting investment into critical flood protection infrastructure.
4. HBRC has committed about $3 million to investigating the feasibility of a storage dam on a tributary of the Ngaruroro River. At the same time, an effort is underway to revive construction of a ‘new’ Ruataniwha Dam in CHB. Do you support either initiative? Would you support HBRC Council putting ratepayer funds into the construction or future operation of either dam?
Water security is a monumental problem for Hawke’s Bay. By 2040 the Heretaunga plains will need an additional 33 million cubic meters of water. The region’s economy, our environment and the more than 100,000 people living on the Heretaunga plains must have access to more water.
Exploring options and developing the business case for water storage can be justifiable public expenditure, only if there is clearly demonstrated public good, benefiting most ratepayers. But water users must fund and run any such water storage project.
Ratepayers learned a very expensive $20million lesson from the previous Ruataniwha Dam fiasco. It is derisory to spend more public money pursuing this project for the benefit of a very few. The cost to build it would exceed $1 billion, making it the most expensive water in the world.
The latest Ruataniwha dam revival has got nothing to do with building a dam. The project has zero chance of proceeding beyond consultants and hangers-on feasting on $6 million of public largesse.
5. Do you believe HBRC is doing enough to develop potential reductions in the region’s water demand? What possibilities of this sort do you see?
The regional council recognizes the absolute requirement to include a host of water use restraints as part of an overall water security strategy. It is inevitable that metering is introduced for urban water users.
Water recycling must play a part. I have advocated a “purple pipe strategy” used in Californian jurisdictions. This involves running pipes (purple in colour), back to households, recycling storm water, for use in the garden or washing the car.
Much more efficient irrigation systems must be introduced if our growers are to maintain production. A revolution is needed in the pastoral sector, focusing on regenerative farming practices.
6. Do you believe HBRC is doing too much or too little with respect to adapting and/or mitigating climate change impacts in the region?
Options available for the regional council to mitigate climate change are extremely limited. The council’s most realistic response is to accelerate flood protection and implement water security strategies.
Promoting land use change and undertaking major planting projects to limit sedimentation into our waterways, completes the three major priorities the council has set to meet the climate change challenge.
7. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table?
HBRC Maori constituencies introduced in 2022, have proven successful in ensuring a mana whenua voice on council. It is my firm belief that, just as we have Maori parliamentary seats, we have a richer, smarter democracy with that voice around the table.
8. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation, in any form?
No. we do not need five Hawke’s Bay councils. Nor do we need 64 politicians and close to 2,000 bureaucrats serving less than 180,000 constituents. We cannot afford it. The administrative handbrake on the region’s growth must be removed with an amalgamated council.
9. Would you support Councils appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to monitor councils’ spending and programme performance?
No. just another silly administrative burden that achieves nothing. Councils are legislated, berated, scrutinized, audited and monitored to the point where little else gets done. These administrative costs amount to tens of millions each year. Let’s stop this madness and give the ratepayer a break!
