[As published in Nov/Dec BayBuzz magazine.]
The grand design for Hawke’s Bay’s recovery is now expressed in official presentations as ‘Restoration … Resilience … Opportunity Capture’. And the ‘how to’ of this design still pays homage to: Locally led, regionally coordinated and nationally supported.
The orchestra leader for this process, but not decision-maker, is the Hawke’s Bay Regional Recovery Agency (HBRRA), an entity appointed by our local political and iwi leaders (the Matariki Governance Group) but paid for by the Crown.
And the elixir that must fuel the process is money. It all boils down to money. Money taken from today’s pockets, whether ratepayer or taxpayer, and/or borrowed at the expense of future generations on the grounds that genuine recovery that includes resilience ‘opportunity capture’ is really all about the future.
Let’s pick this apart.
Grand design
Back in May, our councils and Treaty Settlement Groups were asked to identify and price their recovery needs. For councils, these were called ‘Locality Plans’ and each council has published these, including iwi input, on their websites.
Not surprisingly, given the time pressures and natural bureaucratic urges, our councils threw every bit of mud they could think up at the wall in hopes that much might stick. From true recovery needs with specificity (restore these bridges) to aspirational items languishing unfunded on councils’ backburners (more housing) to ‘blue sky’ dreams (biofuel to waste facility) with no evidential case on hand.
HBRRA rolled these up, uncritically, into a master ‘ask’ costing $4.2 billion over 7+ years. That became the Regional Recovery Plan 1.0. The next step was to boil that down into something more integrated and prioritised for the region, a task that was to be completed in this last quarter of the year. A draft Recovery Plan 2.0 was in circulation during September/October, but its finalisation has been overtaken by the election of a new Government.
All during the post-cyclone window, the overriding mission of our elected leaders and HBRRA has been to negotiate as much Government financial assistance as possible. Those lobbying efforts produced a package of $556 million applied to home buyouts (up to $92.5 million), flood protection ($203.5 million), and repair of transportation infrastructure ($260 million). Substantial additional central government monies have been provided for silt removal, individual and small business cash support, disaster hubs, research into health and environmental impacts, tourism promotion, etc.
Thank you, Labour Government. Good-bye Labour Government.
Election re-set
As I report in another article herein, HBRRA Chair Blair O’Keeffe had reassured BayBuzz pre-election: “The Opposition has made it clear that they will honour commitments made by the current Government, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with the incoming Government – whoever that is – post-election.”
Consequently, with the election result, the orderly process of refining the Recovery Plan, and both quietly and publicly building community support for it, has necessarily been overtaken by the urgent need to freshly present the National/ACT Government with a unified case for meeting Hawke’s Bay’s stripped down and clearly prioritised recovery needs. What do we really need that will yield the greatest effect?
That case is presented in a ‘Briefing for Incoming Minister’ (in our case, a presumed new Recovery Minister) or BIM. So, in the window between 14 October and you reading this article, a BIM has been produced by our HBRRA.
This process was previewed in a public presentation to the Napier City Council on 12 October, which I urge you to view online.
Some key points arising from that presentation by HBRRA Chair Blair O’Keeffe and CEO Ross McLeod:
• We will be moving very quickly.
• While HBRRA would of course confer with councils and draw upon councils’ extensive recovery planning and emerging LTP (Long-term Plan) work, the urgency of the exercise would require it to be ‘top down’ versus ‘bottom up’.
• Key focus areas of the BIM will be core recovery (e.g., silt & debris removal, short-term housing), Category 3 relocation, longer-term housing, infrastructure (including SH 5 and 2, electricity sector), water security, hospital/health services, ‘stand-alone EIT’ and workforce development, and freight logistics and roading. Some real teasers on that list!
• The BIM would be more a well-grounded articulation of regional recovery priorities and their justification – one voice being essential – rather than a direct money ask.
Trusting the process
During the presentation, Mayor Wise queried about opportunities in this process for community consultation. The answer, put forward by Blair O’Keeffe with delicacy, was, with respect to the BIM, not at this stage.
He noted that work on the more comprehensive and refined Recovery Plan 2.0 would proceed in the balance of 2023, and then in the first quarter of 2024 the heavy lifting would begin. Councils will be shaping their own LTPs, these and other sector plans will be integrated and prioritised, with the resultant Regional Plan nailed down and becoming the blueprint for lobbying the Government’s first budget.
His assumption is that the councils will undertake public consultation as they normally would in 2024 as required to prepare and adopt their LTPs. Since the LTPs take a 10-year view, with detailed focus on the first three years, arguably recovery issues would be surfaced and consulted. However, what remains unclear is whether or how the public would be asked its views on which projects or actions should be on the first tranche ‘top 5 or 10’ list versus the outyears.
As CEO McLeod puts it, HBRRA must play a ‘programming and sequencing’ role – the recovery task ahead is huge. Without unlimited funding, material and workforce, not all desired actions can be initiated at once. Priorities must be set, and resources must be allocated across the next 7-10 years.
Commenting on this process, O’Keeffe has been clear that the HBRRA is not a decision-maker empowered to instruct outcomes from our councils. Instead, the Agency’s role, he says, is to “shine light” where needed and ensure that “better conversations” are occurring amongst the relevant players. I call that ‘knocking heads’.
To succeed, all of this requires a great deal of political maturity and trust – both amongst our elected and appointed leaders, and between them and the public.
Key recovery players insist that our elected leaders and council executives have demonstrated outstanding willingness to collaborate post-cyclone. But they have not yet been required to compromise … as they will be at unprecedented scale when it comes time to pare wish lists down into realistic regional priorities. And there are many other public and private sector players whose team spirit will be tested.
Additionally, the role and performance of HBRRA itself, however self-effacing its leaders are, will also come under greater public scrutiny, given its vital importance – initially, as master compiler, planner and integrator, and later as monitor of the Regional Recovery implementation.
Given the stakes involved, nothing less than a regular ‘Report Card’ must be issued by HBRRA on the performance of all Recovery players – not just our councils, but including iwi entities, Unison, Transpower, KiwiRail, EIT, Waka Kotahi and the local ‘leadership’ of our health, housing and social welfare agencies.
The public deserves accountability. For every bit of public consultation that must be abridged in the interest of urgent regional response, an offsetting dose of transparency must be added. And while core rapid recovery might excuse foregoing consultation on those immediate plans, as the process eventually moves into what HBRRA, taking a longer view, calls ‘Opportunity Capture’, the need and expectation for public engagement will again be justified.
Transparency and public engagement are related, but different.
Urgency might be allowed to impinge upon engagement from time to time, but transparency can and should always be provided. Communicating exactly what is being done, why it is being done (including instead of something else), and whether it is getting done at pace and working, need never be compromised. Back to that ‘Report Card’.
The ‘planning’ part of HB’s recovery I believe can be trusted – it’s in the hands of well-informed people who are both pragmatic and visionary. But I would never take for granted accountability for effectively implementing ‘The Plan’ – competing agendas will reappear, sand will get in the gears.
And HBRRA – the orchestra leader – is funded just until 30 June 2025. And then what? HB decision-making returns to normal … or hopefully, a ‘new normal’ suited to our region-wide requirements.