1. HDC has struggled over allocating land to housing/industrial development versus protecting productive soils in the district. Do you believe the right decisions are being made?

Protecting our whenuais a must, our whenua is a source of nourishment, not only for food production but for the wellbeing of our people and environment. While there is a heightened need for housing, it must not come at the cost of the whenua. We can achieve both by prioritising development in already-zoned urban and underutilised areas, building higher-density housing where infrastructure exists, and supporting Māori-led housing models such as papakāinga that uphold kaitiakitanga.

Stronger protections for whenua and incentives for developers to reuse land can help safeguard our most productive areas. If development does occur on these soils, it must include space for māra kai or community gardens, ensuring households can still grow and access fresh food.

2. HDC plans to spend $80 million over the next three years to improve water infrastructure? Is this appropriate and who should pay?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that our water infrastructure is outdated, this has been an issue across successive councils, not just the current one. Cyclone Gabrielle exposed showed how vulnerable our systems are and that upgrading them is essential to ensure, this doesn’t remain a problem for generations to come.

We must future-proof our infrastructure, and $80 million is an investment in resilience, health, and community safety.

However, the cost should not fall solely on ratepayers. Central government, especially through their initiative Local Water Done Well, must contribute significantly to reduce the financial burden on our community and support councils to deliver safe, reliable water for all. Also looking into shared

3. Name 2-3 specific HDC projects, policies or spends over the past three years with which you personally disagree.

• I do not support Hastings District Council’s decision, under the Senior Housing Operational Policy adopted in 2023, to allow annual rent increases for our pakeke in senior housing. This means our elderly whānau are now facing a proposed rent rise for the 2025–2026 financial year, adding further pressure during already challenging times. At a time when the cost of living is already at record highs, this move places even more stress on some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Many of our elders live on fixed incomes, and every extra dollar taken in rent is a dollar less for essentials like food, power, and healthcare.
  
  Our pakeke (Elderly) deserve security, dignity, and stability in their later years, not the burden of rising costs they cannot control. Increasing rents in council-owned senior housing is not just a financial decision, it is a social one, and it risks isolating and disadvantaging those who have already given so much to our district. Instead of adding to their burden, Council should be leading with compassion and finding ways to support our older residents through this cost-of-living crisis.
  
• In my personal view, the way Splash Planet is currently being operated is not sustainable. In the 2023–2024 year alone, the park ran a $1.1 million deficit, with major overspends on staffing and operations. While it brought in $3.37 million in
  revenue, the total operating costs blew out to $4.47 million, leaving ratepayers to
  cover a $1.4 million shortfall. On top of this, the Long Term Plan commits another $5.5 million over the next decade for upgrades and attractions.
  
  I know Splash Planet is a place many families value and it has history in our community, but the reality is ratepayers cannot keep footing the bill for such big losses, especially when households are already struggling with high living costs and facing steep rates increases.
  
  In my view, it’s time for Council to start thinking outside the box and put real options on the table. That could mean new management models, public-private partnerships, community-led solutions, or even rethinking how and when the park operates to cut costs. If we want Splash Planet to have a future, the way it is run has to change. Doing nothing is not an option.

4. Should residential water metering be introduced in the Hastings District?

I do not support water metering for residential households if it is used as a revenue tool. Water is a necessity, not a luxury, and access to it should never be restricted or treated as a way to raise revenue. However, if metering is used purely as a conservation mechanism, to help whānau understand and manage their usage, I would support that approach.

Wai (water) is a taonga and must be treated as such. If we are serious about protecting our wai through water security and conservation, especially future proofing and making it safe for generations to come, there are smarter and fairer solutions. These include rainwater harvesting, greywater reuse, low-flow fittings, leak detection and repairs, drought-tolerant planting, and council-supported retrofits.

Community education on water-smart practices can also strengthen our collective relationship with wai. Real solutions mean investing in sustainable infrastructure, not penalising everyday whānau for simply turning on the tap.

5. Do you believe councils’ rates should be ‘capped’ by legislation?

Unless central government is willing to provide genuine financial support, I do not believe rates should be capped by legislation. There are too many variables at play, a growing population that needs infrastructure, the rising costs of materials and services, and the impacts of inflation.

Growth comes with a cost, and it’s unrealistic to expect councils to deliver for expanding communities under a legislation cap. According to BayBuzz, Hastings, the district’s population grew by 5.4% between 2018 and 2023 (an additional 4,428 people) and is projected to increase by 16% by 2048, reaching almost 94,600 people the fastest growth rate in Hawke’s Bay, That growth requires major investment in housing, roading, water, and community infrastructure. I do believe councils must think outside the box to reduce the burden on ratepayers.

This means exploring new income streams, shared services agreements, regional collaboration, joint procurement, and targeted cost reviews. By diversifying revenue, improving efficiency, and building stronger partnerships with iwi, central government, and private investors, we can meet the needs of a growing district without unfairly loading costs onto households.

A blunt legislative cap would only weaken services and delay investment.

6. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table?

I strongly and unapologetically support retaining Māori seats at the council table. Too often, misinformation and misleading language are used to create fear and resistance.

Terms like “special treatment,” “separatism,” or “two classes of citizens” are thrown around, but these are not only inaccurate, but they are also harmful. Māori wards are not about division. They are about ensuring fair representation, as guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and correcting a system that has historically excluded tangata whenua voices.

Just as we have geographic wards to make sure different communities are represented, Māori wards ensure that tangata whenua, who have a unique relationship with the land, the awa, and the people, are also heard at the decision-making table.

It’s important to challenge the narrative that Māori wards give “extra” rights. They don’t. They give equal rights, the right to be represented fairly, to contribute knowledge and perspectives, and to help shape a district that works for everyone. When misleading terminology is used to discredit Māori wards, it isn’t democracy being defended, its democracy being undermined.

True democracy includes all voices.

7. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation, in any form?

I will be honest, I am on the fence with this kaupapa, because I can see both the potential benefits and the risks. Amalgamation could streamline processes, reduce duplication, and in hindsight may even save ratepayers money in the long run.

However, there are significant costs to consider, not only financial, but also the risk of job losses. In the current cost-of-living crisis, I cannot support any approach that would see more whānau out of work.

Another crucial factor is community voice. Each rohe has its own identity, its own mana, and that must be protected. I remember when this kōrero was raised over 10 years ago, our smaller rural communities expressed real fear about losing their voice and their sense of localism. Those concerns remain just as valid today.

Instead of rushing into amalgamation, we should be exploring more smarter, collaborative solutions that relieve pressure on ratepayers while protecting local voices. Options such as wider Shared Services Agreements, Regional Collaboration Frameworks, Joint Procurement and Bulk Buying, Community-Led Solutions, and Targeted Cost Reviews can reduce duplication and achieve savings without sacrificing the mana and identity of our rohe.

These kinds of investments in fiscal responsibility must be explored fully before considering amalgamation but also the community voice must be heard in these decisions from the beginning.

The fiscal climate we are in is dire, and hasty decisions made under pressure could leave us worse off in the long run. Any discussion about amalgamation must be careful, transparent, and grounded in what is genuinely best for our people and communities.

8. Would you support Councils appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to monitor councils’ spending and programme performance?

Yes. I believe we need an independent review process that can highlight systems which may not be working effectively from a fiscal perspective, while also giving
ratepayers reassurance around how council spending is managed. At the same time, such oversight could help identify areas where greater financial support is needed to deliver better outcomes for our communities.