1. Do you believe HBRC is ‘tough enough’ in enforcing environmental protections when challenging actions (or omissions) by other HB councils and businesses?
BRC has a clear mandate: to protect and enhance our region’s natural resources for
current and future generations. That includes enforcing environmental protections—even when it means challenging actions or omissions by other councils or businesses. This is a core function of HBRC under the Resource Management Act and other regulatory frameworks, and it must be carried out with integrity and consistency.
But enforcement alone isn’t enough. HBRC must also balance environmental protection with economic development and social wellbeing. That means being firm where needed, but also agile—able to pivot when circumstances change, new evidence emerges, or community needs evolve.
Being “tough enough” isn’t about being inflexible. It’s about being principled, transparent, and responsive. HBRC should hold itself and others to account while also fostering collaboration, innovation, and practical solutions that work for our region.
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 “safe enough” question is a good one—and it can only be answered by those who are directly at risk. Just as we’re seeing in the work around evacuation trigger levels, every individual has a different tolerance for risk, a unique risk profile, and varying levels of preparedness.
Flood management options must be shaped by the communities who live in those places. But this must be balanced with affordability and the critical “who pays” question, which needs to be addressed alongside the “what to do” conversation. This isn’t a decision for Council alone.
Council’s role is to provide a robust and equitable framework for these conversations to take place. Ultimately, it will be required to act—but that action should reflect both the community’s wishes and the logistical realities. We must also acknowledge that no solution will satisfy everyone.
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 in order to invest instead in better earning financial assets?
HBRC must explore all avenues to reduce the financial burden on ratepayers, especially when facing major infrastructure challenges like flood protection. That includes reviewing the performance of all regional assets—including Napier Port shares—and considering whether alternative investments could deliver better long-term returns.
Investment is a specialist skill, and Council has an opportunity to build a robust framework that attracts the brightest minds and best ideas. Any decision must be made with care, transparency, and a clear understanding of risk and reward.
We have an obligation to act not just for today, but for our mokopuna—for future generations. That means seeking enduring outcomes, not short-term fixes. HBRC must act on behalf of the whole region when managing its financial assets, ensuring decisions reflect long-term resilience, regional equity, and sustainable prosperity. Selling down Port shares should not be off the table—but it must be part of a wider, well-informed strategy.
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?
Over the past three years, I’ve been part of a Council committed to shifting HBRC’s role from being the “doer” to becoming the “enabler.” Through our Effectiveness and Efficiency Review, we are tooling-up to reduce pressure on rates and reshape how the Regional Council delivers services—empowering communities to act, take responsibility, and build self-reliance.
When it comes to large-scale water infrastructure like the proposed Whanawhana and Ruataniwha dams, I believe HBRC’s role is to support robust investigation and enable good decisions—not to fund construction or operation. The principle of fairness must apply: those who benefit should pay, and those who benefit most—particularly in business growth models—should contribute the most. Homeowners should not be expected to subsidise business essentials, though we must also consider the wider benefits to regional prosperity and environmental gains.
The current private-led model for the ‘new’ Ruataniwha Dam is a good example of how historical community support can enable future growth. Likewise, the feasibility work underway at Whanawhana is a vital part of Hawke’s Bay’s broader water strategy. It sits alongside other important initiatives like water savings, nature-based solutions, aquifer recharge, and resource management under the TANK framework. Exploring these opportunities is in the best interest of the whole region. We must understand the complexities, support innovation, and enable long-term resilience—without placing unfair burdens on ratepayers.
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?
Question not supplied by candidate.
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?
Climate change must be at the forefront of everything HBRC does. What worked—or didn’t work—in the past won’t be enough as we face rising sea levels, more severe storms, and harsher droughts. Hawke’s Bay’s economy is heavily reliant on agriculture and horticulture, which makes us particularly vulnerable if we fail to adapt and mitigate.
We need to act with urgency. That means making brave, pragmatic, and proactive decisions—not waiting until we’re forced into expensive, reactive responses that cause real harm to our communities. The speed of change is accelerating, and HBRC must keep pace. But council action alone is not enough—our communities must also support and engage with change opportunities as they arise. When HBRC reaches out, we must respond and get involved. Complacency cannot be our legacy and the whole community must take responsibility for our future.
I believe HBRC is making progress, but we must do more. We must continue to embed climate resilience into every policy, every investment, and every community conversation. The cost of inaction is too high—and the opportunity to lead with purpose is ours to take.
7. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table?
Yes, the council table should reflect the communities it serves.
8. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation, in any form?
Absolutely yes. Our community cannot afford the luxury of 5 council structures we must move to a Unitary authority.
9. Would you support Councils appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to monitor councils’ spending and programme performance?
In principle, I’m drawn to the idea of appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General”—transparency and accountability are vital. However, I struggle to see sufficient value returned for what would be a significant investment. Community funds are already stretched thin, and we have existing checks and balances in place to monitor council spending and performance.
Each council is facing a pipeline of expensive infrastructure and climate resilience projects. Unless retrospective evaluations are actively used to shape future decisions, such an initiative risks becoming a costly exercise with limited impact.
The real issue lies in the structural constraints of local government. Long-term plans are often rigid, and set in a different financial environment, while rates—our primary revenue tool—are blunt and inflexible. Councils need more responsive funding mechanisms. I support reform that opens up new revenue streams, including:
- Crown-owned properties contributing to rates
- A portion of GST being returned to local councils
- Progressing initiatives like a regional bed tax
We must focus on reforms that empower councils to act swiftly and strategically—not add more layers of oversight that may not deliver tangible benefits to our communities.
