1. Do you believe HBRC is ‘tough enough’ in enforcing environmental protections when challenging actions (or omissions) by other HB councils and businesses?
We have made progress, but no, I don’t believe we are consistently tough enough. As Chair, I’ve worked to sharpen our regulatory approach — especially in the face of pollution and land-use practices that damage our rivers, estuaries, and coastlines. But we must go further. Protecting our environment sometimes requires courageous conversations with other councils and big players. That’s leadership. Compliance and enforcement are only part of it — we also need stronger partnerships, shared accountability, and transparent decision- making. Our whenua and our people deserve no less.
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’?
We’ve seen the cost of doing too little. “Safe enough” means families protected, communities connected, and food production sustained during extreme weather. Cyclone Gabrielle was our wake-up call to the largest flood on record in New Zealand. I led our regional council through that crisis and recovery — and I know firsthand that resilience isn’t cheap, but neither is rebuilding. We need to invest smartly: prioritise critical stopbanks, spillways, secondary flow areas, restore wetlands, and rethink how and where we build. We must seek government co-investment, leverage every dollar, and keep fairness at the centre. It’s not just infrastructure — it’s peace of mind.
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?
Napier Port has been a strategic asset for the Council — it anchors our economy, our exports, and our regional identity. We must find smarter ways to fund resilience — including long-term infrastructure funding tools, co-investment from central government, and better financial assets that don’t compromise our future. Considering all options in the future will be one ultimately influenced by the regional appetite and a very strong case for change.
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?
I support feasibility studies — as long as they’re transparent and robust. We must understand the science, the cost, and the environmental and cultural impact before moving forward. But I do not support using ratepayer money to construct large-scale dams — particularly when the ecological damage may outweigh the benefits. I have stood strong on no further rate payer dollar to the furthering of the Ruataniwha Dam particularly with the difficult access needed of the protected conservation area. Our region needs water resilience, but it must be nature-based, community-supported, and future-fit.
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?
We are starting to move in the right direction — but much more is needed. Water is precious, and our future depends on how wisely we use it. I support universal water metering, especially in urban areas with metering of new builds a ‘no brainer’. I support stronger compliance, demand management, and land-use rules that protect aquifers. We should also invest more in education, storage (where appropriate), and supporting landowners who shift to regenerative, water-efficient systems. Community, mana whenua, and industry all need to be part of the solution. Water connects us all.
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?
We’re doing more than ever before — but the pace must pick up. Climate change is already reshaping our region: through floods, drought, insurance retreats, and community trauma. It’s no longer a future threat — it’s our present reality. As Chair, I’ve embedded climate adaptation into every major decision we make. But I want to see bolder action: clean public transport, restored wetlands, emission targets, a green workforce pipeline, and investment in climate-resilient infrastructure. It’s time to lead like the next generation is watching — because they are.
7. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table?
As HBRC’s first wahine Māori Chair, I support Māori wards. They ensure Tiriti-based representation and bring essential perspectives to regional challenges like climate adaptation and freshwater health.
8. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation, in any form?
Our people want leadership that works together — not just fewer logos. I don’t support top- down amalgamation, but I do support shared services, regional strategies, and stronger collaboration. We need to be efficient without losing local voice. When we focus on outcomes — housing, water, climate resilience — people care less about boundaries and more about results. Let’s serve them better, together. But we also need to make sure there is a division of responsibilities where the fox isn’t left guarding the hen house when it comes to regulation and enforcement.
9. Would you support Councils appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to monitor councils’ spending and programme performance?
Transparency is the foundation of public trust and ratepayers deserve to know that every dollar is well spent, and that decisions are backed by evidence and values. However, at HBRC we evidence every dollar budgeted for and spent in our long term and annual plans, and local government is subject to annual performance audits by the Department for Internal Affairs, and we also livestream all our Council meetings. Appointing an auditor general inevitably incur significant extra cost employing this person and his team to audit the information, as well as council staff time to prepare and evidence the reports. If the whole thing cost an extra $500,000 at a guess per year, my question I’d want to weigh up is whether we’re better spent installing 1,000 water meters, planting 100,000 native trees into wetlands, or installing 5,000 possum traps a year.
