1. NCC plans to spend $701 million through to 2034 to improve water infrastructure. Is this appropriate, and who should pay?

Napier’s water network is ageing, under pressure, and must meet tougher national standards under the Government’s Local Water Done Well framework. The planned $701 million investment through to 2034 is deemed necessary to ensure safe, reliable, and climate-resilient drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater services.

Funding should be shared fairly across three groups:
● Ratepayers, through targeted charges for the direct local benefit.
● Central Government, because national rules drive much of the cost and require
upgrades across the country.
● Future users, by borrowing so the cost is spread over the decades these assets will serve.

The programme has review points built into Council planning, budgeting, and compliance obligations, particularly with the government-mandated Water Services Plan. Each stage offers the opportunity to check progress, costs, and priorities, giving Council the flexibility to pause, slow, or reprioritise if conditions change.

This approach addresses decades of under-investment while protecting affordability, meeting national standards, and ensuring ratepayers can see that every dollar is regularly tested for value.

2. Does Napier need a new aquatic centre? If so, where?

Our most recent resident survey, combined with the expected lifespan of the current facility, shows that Napier will need a new aquatic centre within the next decade. Planning should start now to ensure continuity of service and to understand the impact on rates and user fees.

I look forward to the Citizens’ Assembly recommending where the new centre should be located. Given the history of the “what” and “where” debate, involving residents in a different way this time should lead to a better outcome for our community.

3. Do you support NCC continuing to dump partially treated wastewater into Hawke Bay?

Personally, this is an uncomfortable trade-off. Our marine outfall system was built decades ago when offshore discharge was the most practical and affordable option, given our coastal terrain and limited suitable land.

I do not support continuing to discharge only partially treated wastewater, and Council is taking steps to reduce the impact. A project is underway to replace the outdated outfall pipeline, and this year we allocated $9.5 million to wastewater improvements. These are tangible actions to enhance treatment infrastructure and protect our waters. Something I think our community really cares about.

4. Name 2–3 specific NCC projects, policies, or spends over the past three years with which you personally disagree.

This is a challenging question. Once a decision is made, I take seriously my commitment to support it unless new information emerges that warrants reconsideration through the appropriate governance tools such as a notice of motion.

With the benefit of hindsight:

● I would not have supported consulting on the future of the Aquarium at the point we did. The intention was to involve residents early, but the high-level cost estimates created confusion and concern, with many believing Council was already committed to spending those amounts.
● I remain uncomfortable with pushing the Te Pihinga community centre project in
Maraenui beyond the 10-year horizon. While fiscally prudent, the decision does not
honour the expectations created through multiple community engagements. Not
delivering what you say you will is a bitter pill to swallow. In this case it is made
especially difficult knowing the area will see significant residential growth and may well need a community facility in the future.

5. Do you support building homes in these two areas – Riverbend Road, Ahuriri Station?

Napier needs more housing, and the draft Future Development Strategy identifies both sites as possibilities. Each comes with natural hazard and infrastructure challenges.

For Riverbend Road, I would only support housing if independent verification confirms that flood risks are mitigated through robust engineering such as land raising and advanced stormwater systems.

For Ahuriri Station, there is strong potential. As part of Treaty settlement redress, it comes with a culturally rich, environmentally integrated vision and could provide significant housing and jobs.

In both cases, development must meet high standards for safety, resilience, and infrastructure readiness from the outset.

6. Should residential water metering be introduced in Napier?

Water meters can encourage conservation, help detect leaks, and ensure a fairer “pay for what you use” approach. They raise awareness of consumption and have reduced wastage in other cities.

However, with major changes to water service delivery due in the next few years, now is not the time to commit to this investment. Our focus should be on fixing leaks, educating the community, and promoting practical household water-saving measures. Once the legislative environment is clear, water metering can be reconsidered with the certainty and public support it needs.

7. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table?

Yes. They uphold one person, one vote, reflect our founding document, and align with the national electoral system.

8. Do you believe councils’ rates should be ‘capped’ by legislation?

I believe we must consider every tool available to keep rates affordable while ensuring councils can operate efficiently and meet their legal obligations for essential services.

Some of the best models overseas strike a balance. In Victoria, rates are capped to inflation, but councils can apply for a higher limit if there is a genuine need, such as major infrastructure or disaster recovery. In New South Wales, an independent body sets the cap, with a “special variation” process if councils make a strong case with community backing. These systems keep costs in check without preventing essential work.

By contrast, the rigid caps introduced in the UK in the 1980s led to political stand-offs and service cuts, showing the risks of inflexible rules.

A one-size-fits-all rates cap from Wellington is not the answer. The right approach is clear limits with sensible flexibility, backed by transparency, planning, and efficiency.

9. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation in any form?

Regardless of my personal view, all signs point to some form of amalgamation ahead. My role is to ensure Napier is in the strongest position to protect and advance residents’ interests if that happens.

That means maintaining strong investment in infrastructure, especially water and roading, managing costs, trialling shared services where they make sense, and ensuring Napier’s voice is strong regionally and nationally. It also means robust emergency planning, close coordination with neighbours, and growth plans that protect our community’s needs.

If change is coming, we must be ready with sound finances, resilient services, and a clear vision for our future.

10. Would you support appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to
monitor councils’ spending and performance?

We should seriously consider all tools that can strengthen financial sustainability and protect rates. A Hawke’s Bay Auditor General could be one of them.

Success would depend on three key design factors:
● Scope and independence – clear powers and protection from political influence.
● Funding model – secure funding not reliant on councils’ goodwill.
● Reporting and follow-through – short, clear updates and active tracking of fixes so the public can see the value.

If well designed, truly independent, and supported politically, this role could be a valuable ratepayer watchdog. Without that, it risks becoming just another layer of bureaucracy.