The expression ‘trumped-up’ – as in ‘trumped-up charges’ – goes back to the 1700s, well before Donald Trump has taken the practice of exaggerated, counter-factual claims to staggering, dangerous heights.
Anna Lorck, apparently now an expert on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, recently declared that council to be “in crisis” and anti-democratic in an opinion article.
Her charges are trumped-up. The only crisis at hand is in perennial candidate Lorck’s reveries. The complexity of the issues involved and the ‘give and take’ of councillors’ differing perspectives seems simply too confusing for her.
It’s much easier to push every hot button within reach, grossly oversimplifying the difficult choices at hand, in hopes of stirring and tapping discontent for opportunist purpose.
Her ire seems based upon the HBRC’s rate increase, the lowest in the region, at the mid-point across all NZ regional councils, and by far the lowest of all HB councils in actual dollar impact on most ratepayers affected. As a Hastings resident, she might want to check out the dollar cost of the rates invoice she’s about to get from HDC and give her husband, HDC Councillor Damon Harvey, and his colleagues a verbal thrashing.
And maybe reconsider her strong vocal support for continuing status quo funding for HB Tourism. It’s a bit cheeky to trumpet one’s outrage at a major budget cut you oppose and then declare even more outrage at the rates increase resulting from maintaining that spend!
None of this is to say that rate increases from 16% to 20.9% across our councils are happy-making for anyone, and especially for those with special circumstances who will need to avail themselves of councils’ rate remissions options.
So sure, push-back against council costs should be vigorous and unrelenting. That process will unfold at the Regional Council as it should at each of our councils, under vigilant outside eyes. But the dissection, driven hard by councillors, needs to be well-informed, not knee-jerk.
Then there’s Lorck’s fantasy about the Regional Council’s “war chest” – an investment portfolio dominated by HBRC’s ownership of Napier Port and supplemented by equities and properties.
Effectively managed (i.e., yielding returns higher than the cost of borrowing), this portfolio will enable future, sustainable rate relief. We should all be thankful for that, as we can anticipate that both future environmental protection costs and future natural disasters are sure to confront us. There are more and possibly worse rainy days to come.
Most of the recovery and resilience work HBRC (and other councils) must undertake provides inter-generational safety and benefit. Paying for such investment should also be inter-generational, which justifies borrowing … and more of it.
These are financial realities that substance-bereft Lorck can’t seem to process. Just as she can’t offer more than superficial analysis of any of HBRC’s core environmental challenges, from water security to coastal strategy to land use change to flood protection to biodiversity. I’ve yet to see/hear her address any environmental matter – the bread-and-butter issues of the Regional Council – with informed insight.
How can one credibly trash the Regional Council with one trumped-up charge after another with no understanding of what it does or why?
My advice to her would be to take a time out – do some serious homework over the balance of the year regarding the work and programmes of the Regional Council, if that’s where she wants to make her future political home. Figure out where the rates should or shouldn’t go. Dive into the investment portfolio.
Then emerge in 2025 not as a glib Trump-style hot-button pusher, but as someone with serious insights and alternatives worth listening to … maybe even a born-again environmentalist.
Harsh.
Just to make a point about the HBRC rate increases being “the lowest in the region”. That sounds really nice but one often (conveniently) forgets that these are average numbers….hope you are not too upset (and write a ‘pointy’ article about me) if I let you know that I am really pissed off with my 41% HBRC rate increase – so much for averages.
Tom, you hit the nail on the head, and many taxpayers of Hawke’s Bay will agree with you. It’s also called “jumping on the band wagon!”
In my opinion Lorck has never been more than an opportunist and that’s all she will ever be
As far as HBRC rates go ours have gone up 100% and other over 500% so there is an axe there to grind
Tom, I admit I haven’t read Anna’s piece and she may well be shooting from the lip, but at risk of blunting our good relationship, i fear you are in danger of becoming an HBRC apologist. I have yet to see any comment, let alone criticism, from you re the massive reduction in rates for forestry and farming at urban expense, at a time when costs for dealing with woody debris brought down to our beaches by storm is spiraling out of hand. This does not compute. And in contrast i note Gisborne – a unitary council – has just passed a motion to seek 70% of clean-up costs from the forestry industry (with 15% from farmers and 15% other ratepayers)… an approach HBRC should emulate, instead of rewarding these despoilers with 90% rates rebates! Why are you ignoring this issue? Do you have forestry shares? Please recalibrate your critical faculties, just as you ask Anna to do.
Hi Tom, thanks for pushing back against Anna’s unfair criticisms and efforts to undermine public confidence in HBRC.
I’m all up for strong public debate on the performance of HBRC but it ought to be well-informed and well-intentioned, not self-serving.
But Xan, all debate and opinion must be self-serving for anyone’s debate and or opinion is a reflection of their beliefs which serves them one way or another, even when standing up for someone/something else they are infact serving their own need to say it, just as you felt the need to stick up for the HBRC which you represent, is a case of self-service.
Bruse Bisset makes patently valid points re the redistribution of rates to the urban areas, something that Lorck is also concerned with as was the vast majority of submitters to “our” HBRC yet our Councillors decided to go against the publics wishes which does beg the question, who is it they serve if they cannot do as the public wishes, that’s hardly a glowing example of “democracy”…. time for some of these councillors to rethink their positions I say.
Hi James (not the ex-HBRC CE). Councillors are elected to serve the region, we take an oath on that and try to live up to it. Councillors have a range of views and each brings a unique set of values to the table, which no doubt influences their opinions. In undertaking our roles, representing the views of constituents, advocating for the organisation, defending it against unreasonable criticism and sometimes even criticising it ourselves, that is a matter first & foremost of service to the community and to the organisation, not self-service.
On the question of rates redistribution and moving from LV to CV for general rates (which was the biggest factor in reducing rural rates at the expense of urban), that was a case of the majority of Councillors, having listened to public feedback and balanced that against the advice of experts, decided to back the expert advice. It so happens that I was one of the minority in opposition on that occasion. I don’t agree with the majority decision but I defend the right of my fellow Councillors to exercise their judgement. Sometimes that judgement won’t accord with ‘public opinion’ (ie. the balance of submissions) but that’s why we elect Councillors.
Anna Lorck is just trying to maintain her profile and name recognition before she stands for the Power Board.
Lots of hot air and not a lot of thought. Nothing changes!
It must be difficult to remain truly impartial when being sponsored.
Typical Anna Lorck – one hit wonder MP now vocal critic from the sidelines based on a Liz Truss style hubris –
Anna – as Tom says – go away for a long stretch and perhaps look at HDC Rates rise which you’re remarkably quiet about ( conflict of interest on your sense of peace there )
Karl, not sure whether you’re referring to me, Anna or perhaps even Tom or Bruce here. I can’t speak for the others but I am 100% self-funded as a Councillor, did not and have not received any financial assistance from anyone, apart from my Councillor salary.
Her maiden speech in parliament was enough.
Add Damon Harvey to the mix too! He has been targeting HBRC too!
Thanks Allus. Happy for you to call me – or do you want to hide behind an alias?
The thing I notice with those making a politically charged point is they make general and sweeping claims that any reasonable person should find unacceptable actions on by the accused. These are often made without comparison to other similar actions by similar organizations facing similar circumstances. In fact the claimant often relies on the fact that people are too busy to fact check, distrustful of governance, and need someone to blame for their pain that they can punish now. The claimant benefits from all this of course.
However, the truth is the organization being blamed is often in the situation as a result of the actions, inactions, and priorities of decades of decision makers, that built a system rewarding those who can minimize impacts on the public, by keeping more money in our pocket, which is in turn a strong motivator for politicians who are then seen as our best chance of having a higher standard of living and our saviors.
Sadly, organizations like HBRC, local and central government, then end up deferring needed work to keep rates low and meet political promises rather than doing it when needed to deliver services sustainably. Look at Wellington water and our own regional infrastructure.
If we want lower rates, we must decide what services we will give up or accept we must lower the standards of service.
We can’t keep getting what we got previously because we haven’t maintained it in the past to do so.
So to those that are complaining about rate hikes, read the long term plans, ask those responsible for identifying needed work how that work was prioritized. Make transparent why and when it needs to be done relative to impacts to agreed service standards.
In such a system, the impact of politics is minimized, and effort focused on service delivery, sustainablity and affordability.