1. HDC has struggled over allocating land to housing/industrial development versus protecting productive soils in the district. Do you believe the right decisions are being made?
No, the balance isn’t right. Productive soils are a long-term asset and shouldn’t be lost to poor planning. We need more housing and industrial land, but that must come from smart urban intensification and better infrastructure planning, not by paving over the land that feeds us.
2. HDC plans to spend $80 million over the next three years to improve water infrastructure? Is this appropriate and who should pay?
Upgrading water is essential, but $80 million is a big spend. Rather than spreading work across multiple contractors, Council should consider engaging one trusted contractor on a long-term deal. That would drive down costs, improve outcomes, and give both Council and the contractor certainty and accountability.
We need to lobby for more government support, smarter spending, and better value from contractors. No blank cheques.
3. Name 2-3 specific HDC projects, policies or spends over the past three years with which you personally disagree.
The purchase of the AOG (Assembly of God) building. Bought for $1 million, then sold for just $150k. Clear financial incompetence and a waste of ratepayer money.
The Civic Square upgrade – Even at $1 million, it’s a vanity spend when many residents are still drinking from asbestos pipes. That money should have gone to core infrastructure.
The 2024 Long Term Plan decision not to balance the budget for three years – Council voted to run operating deficits, citing cyclone costs and financial pressure. But households are tightening their belts — Council should do the same, not rely on debt to finance vanity projects and pass the burden to future ratepayers.
4. Should residential water metering be introduced in the Hastings District?
Water metering only makes sense once Council fixes its own leaking pipes — we’re losing up to 30% of treated water. Pensioners and low-use homes would benefit, but we must protect struggling families. This shouldn’t be a revenue grab — it must be fair, targeted, and focused on fixing waste first.
5. Do you believe councils’ rates should be ‘capped’ by legislation?
Yes — I support rate caps, and it’s a key policy in my campaign. Councils must live within their means, just like households. Without a cap, they treat ratepayers like an open chequebook. A legislative cap tied to inflation would force smarter spending and stop the cycle of double-digit increases all the current councillors voted for.
6. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table?
No — I believe in one person, one vote. Creating race-based seats sends the wrong message, that Māori cannot succeed without special treatment, which I strongly reject. Strong Māori leaders are already elected on merit in general wards. A true Treaty partnership means treating both partners equally, not creating separate rules for one group.
7. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation, in any form?
Hawke’s Bay doesn’t need five councils. I support amalgamating Hastings, Napier, CHB, and the Regional Council into one Hawke’s Bay Council. Wairoa should join Gisborne. One mayor, 12 councillors (4 Napier, 4 Hastings, 4 Rural), and fewer bureaucrats will mean real savings for ratepayers and better, joined-up regional decision-making.
8. Would you support Councils appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to monitor councils’ spending and programme performance?
No — I trust voters to hold councils accountable. We don’t need another layer of bureaucracy or another $200,000 a year oversight role. Ratepayers are smart enough to elect good stewards — and if councillors fail, they can be voted out.
