The HB Regional Council just conducted a two-hour workshop essentially on how and when to talk with constituents and ratepayers about two complicated issues – coastal protection and future flood resilience.

Of course these are serious matters – we are a democracy after all – and HBRC Councillors and staff should be commended for thinking about them. 

The room was packed to the gills with Councillors, staff, iwi reps and consultants, plus some video participants and two public witnesses. One might have thought selling the rest of HBRC’s Napier Port shares was on the agenda.

The stage was set by a chart giving an overview of all the HBRC consultation topics (about ten) and timelines expected for 2025, as well as a topline view of what other HB councils would be consulting on (more than a dozen more). The atmosphere exuded ‘consultation fatigue’. 

Reflecting that, and considering the need to prioritise public engagement around Heretaunga and Upper Tukituki flood protection schemes, one outcome floated (which will be decided in a December official Council meeting) was to defer final consultation on the coastal protection strategy until 2026. In the interim, a ‘reference group’ would be formed to give further consideration mainly to funding options and “keep the issues warm”.

Time was spent explaining the differences between collaborate, consult, inform, engage. The team was warned against using the term ‘co-design’ when engaging with Māori. I confess to not following that point.

Very briefly the group touched upon different styles of engagement – online citizen panels is an approach that might be trialed, budget permitting … to me the most promising bit of ‘news’ in the meeting.

Slides were presenting showing attempts to translate ‘council-speak’ into plain English. Councillors attempted to wordsmith a couple of those.

One slide presented ‘Principles’ for engagement with the community, which included: Te Tiriti grounded, inclusive, empathetic, trust, open, learning. To which was added, simple.

Another presented the ‘Principles’ that would guide options presented for flood resilience, which included: practical, robust, equitable, forward-looking, complementary. To which was added, predictable (so as to ensure the public knows exactly what to expect when the next major weather event occurs).

Quite heavy lifting I’m sure you will agree. Thankfully a very capable consultant was on hand to record these contributions and promise they would be taken aboard.

Sorry, but the level of discourse was disappointing. I listened wondering how the staff/consultant team driving this work might rate the value of the session.

Councillors conceded that, despise the talent in attendance, the full complement of staff needed to advise on overall HBRC consultation priorities, scheduling and funding was not on hand. So no strategic assessment of that was attempted.

Nor was there any substantive discussion of exactly what staff or Councillors actually want or need to hear in various ‘engagements’ with the public, other than acknowledgment that one size didn’t fit all.

With the ‘big’ issues – the ones that cost heaps of money – the point of ‘consultation’ might primarily be to lay the groundwork for grim news ahead about costs, rates and other options for funding. So why not cut to the chase and ask about that clearly and directly? Here’s what you can get for X $$; here’s what you get for Y $$. Which would you prefer?

Or it might be that ‘consultation’ is primarily about setting more realistic, fact- and analysis-based public expectations about what can or cannot be delivered or accomplished, given competing needs. We can spend X $$ on road maintenance and Y $$ on water infrastructure, or the reverse. Which would you prefer?

Having weighed such soundings, it’s still up to our elected representatives to make the call. That’s what we select and pay them to do.

Rarely is ‘consultation’ really about discovering new ideas or options lurking in the public imagination or wider experience base, although the search for innovation and out-of-the-box thinking should never be precluded, because staff bureaucracies and Councillors alike certainly can get stuck on their own preconceptions and habits of thinking.

Here’s an audacious question: Should the priority be designing consultation so as to yield the most benefit to decision-makers in a timely fashion? No more than needed; no less.

One could imagine there are circumstances where the public might prefer: ‘There’s been enough hui already, just get on and do it!’

There might even be more sentiment for that approach than timid Councillors might think. Next year is an election year. Action might be more rewarded than fretting over measuring public sentiment and carefully counting submissions.