That’s how NCC deputy mayor Annette Brosnan assessed the performance of HB’s Climate Action Joint Committee in making the successful case for the Napier Council withdrawing from the Joint Committee.

Her blistering remarks at a public council meeting (27 March 2025) were some of the most blunt and candid I’ve seen in 15+ years of covering HB’s local governance and politics. I should note that five councillors (Browne, Boag, Greig, Simpson, Taylor) opposed the withdrawal, appealing for continuing regional collaboration on the issue. 

This is the way our elected governors should talk and behave … whatever their views. This is the kind of truly informative debate our councils should have in public, not the zero-insight, stage-managed acclamation performances most council meetings have become. The chief takeaway from most council meetings is … why do we have councillors?

Councillor Brosnan’s comments are all the more remarkable because she has served as one of NCC’s representatives on the Joint Committee, which clearly fuelled her frustration.

Before going any further, I should note that BayBuzz has sharply criticised the Climate (In)Action Joint Committee for some time (just search Climate Action on our website).

So I’ll just let Councillor Brosnan’s critique speak for itself …

“I speak in support of withdrawing from the Climate Action Joint Committee – not because climate action is unimportant, but because Napier needs a sharper, more effective, and locally focused approach to achieving real climate results. We need to ‘get on with getting our house right’ we need to lead our business from the front, in the right direction with action, and we need to put our pride aside and say ’no’ when something isn’t working. Not just for our time and our staffs time, or for our rate payers dollar, but for achieving climate action.”

“It is evident that there is a pressing need for decisive and immediate climate action in our  region. While discussions and planning are necessary, they must swiftly transition into tangible actions to address the imminent challenges posed by climate change.”

“When Napier joined the CAJC, it was with a vision of regional cooperation delivering meaningful climate action, meaningful climate advocacy and meaningful climate action plans for adaptation and mitigation. 2 years in this vision has not been realised. Instead, the committee has in my view, become an ineffective structure with little to show to date for its existence.”

…

“After spending time on this committee I cannot put my hand on heart and say staying, is money well spent. It has been increasingly frustrating, we saw the chair resign, many members around us resign, poor attendance, the committee meetings talked in circles off topic or to no conclusion, to the point where I’ve struggled to find or add value, now often choosing to spend time elsewhere in the portfolio than attending these most frustrating meetings. I have also spent some time with our regulatory and infrastructure staff enquiring, pushing to find what the value has been/ is going to be in the committees work for us and our future work streams, every time coming up short.”

…

“There are clear arguments for withdrawing which I believe could be summarised  under the topics of duplication, output ownership, lack of measurable results, unsatisfactory performance, cost beyond impact, upcoming government reform, and the need for focused local action.”

…

“The JC has failed to deliver enough. It has pivoted, delayed, and ultimately underperformed.”

…

“I believe a withdrawal now is not a retreat from regional collaboration, but a strategic shift towards a more effective and autonomous climate governance, you do not need to be in a big structure to achieve big things. I believe a shift enables Napier to better address its unique climate challenges promptly, with action, ensuring that the city’s efforts are not hindered by the inefficiencies of a broader committee that has yet to deliver concrete results or anything of consequence for Napier. So that we can hand on heart say, we are embedding real climate action into our business and that money is well spent.”

…

“Instead of waiting on a committee that has struggled to deliver meaningful outcomes, Napier should be taking ownership of its climate future, elevating reporting and climate importance, focusing resources where they will have the greatest impact.”

Brosnan described the work NCC has undertaken with respect to addressing its own organisational climate footprint, climate resilience and adaptation. She basically argued that focusing on its own patch was the most impactful use of NCC’s resources on behalf of Napier residents.

NCC does in fact have a well-developed emissions reduction plan, as BayBuzz reported here. And the plan is here … the best amongst our TAs.

In response, Councillor Hayley Browne, who has also served on the Joint Committee and voted for NCC to remain in, commented that ‘circular conversations’ were a necessary part of building consensus about forward action in contentious policy areas like climate. 

True enough, but at this point, years in, no longer an adequate defence for the meagre accomplishments of the Climate Action Joint Committee, which will now have about $60,000 per year less to spend. 

As for the wider implications of NCC’s decision, HBRC chair Hinewai Ormsby said this: “The Mayors of the region and I discussed on Monday that it makes sense to continue to the end of the term to complete particularly the Climate Change Risk Assessment report and its engagement with our communities across the region, and that any changes to the Committee and its work can be set in the new triennium.”

This is exactly the kind of ‘cruise control’ that has gotten the Joint Committee to its present somnambulant state. The Climate Risk Report for the region will be reviewed and (presumably) accepted by the Joint Committee on 31 March, then publicly released in due course. The extent to which it drives any future ‘climate action’ on the part of HB councils or the region’s major business players will determine whether it has any actual value.

IMHO, the Joint Committee approach was doomed from the outset. The structure guaranteed that the intensity and priority would be set by the least committed members. The TAs should simply have been tasked to clean-up their own internal ‘emissions footprint’ issues at pace, with everything else being regarded as requiring a truly regional strategy and action plan best left to HBRC to conceive in the first instance. In this case, best to provide regional leadership and then cultivate TA buy-in where relevant.

For an interesting civics lesson, you can view the debate here, starting at 1:30, with Brosnan’s comments beginning at 1:55.