1. Do you believe HBRC is ‘tough enough’ in enforcing environmental protections when challenging actions (or omissions) by other HB councils and businesses? 

No I dont think enough tough enforcement on environmental protections.

Tougher Enforcement could look like

– Hold councils and businesses accountable for breaches, no more quiet deals or delayed action.
– Enforce water allocation limits and penalise overuse, especially in stressed catchments.
– Protect wetlands, floodplains, and riparian zones from degradation and development.
– Require cultural impact assessments for high-risk activities, not just technical ones.
– Resource mana whenua to monitor and report environmental breaches, true partnership means shared authority.

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’?

HBRC must approach this challenge with bold pragmatism and cultural integrity. Cyclone Gabrielle exposed the vulnerability of our communities, especially marae and papakāinga. The $600 million estimate reflects the scale of what’s needed to protect lives, whenua, and whakapapa.
‘Safe enough’ must be defined not just by engineering standards, but by community resilience:

– Prioritize high-risk areas  where Marae and Māori communities are concentrated.
– Co-design solutions with mana whenua to ensure flood protection respects tikanga and taiao.
– Adopt a “low-regret” strategy invest in infrastructure that delivers both flood resilience and environmental co-benefits (e.g., wetlands, riparian planting).
– Use climate-adjusted standards like the 1-in-500-year design benchmark already applied to some stopbanks.
This isn’t just about infrastructure it’s about intergenerational safety. HBRC must ask: Are we protecting whakapapa or just assets?

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?

This is a strategic pivot worth serious consideration. Napier Port currently represents 80% of HBRC’s investment portfolio and returns less than other financial assets. While the Port is a taonga to many, its dominance creates concentration risk and limits HBRC’s ability to fund critical infrastructure like flood protection.

Key considerations:

• Diversification is prudent: Selling down a portion  could unlock capital for higher-yield investments.
• Ring-fence proceeds for taiao resilience: Ensure any sale directly funds flood protection, climate adaptation, and community safety.
• Engage the public transparently: Many view the Port as a “crown jewel” consultation must honour that sentiment while explaining the financial realities.

If we want to protect our people, we must be willing to rethink our portfolio.

4. HBRC has committed about $3 million to investigate 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 do not support further public investment in the revived Ruataniwha Dam. Ratepayers have already paid enough. If private interests wish to pursue it, they should fund it themselves.

We must be cautious of well-rehearsed tactics that manufacture urban water crises to justify large-scale infrastructure. These schemes often sideline community voices and ignore smarter, more sustainable alternatives.

Instead of pouring millions into concrete, let’s invest in practical, proven solutions:

• Fix the leaks up to 40% of potable water is lost in council networks.
• Introduce water meters and volumetric charging to reduce consumption.
• Require water tanks for new builds to manage peak demand and stormwater.
• Subsidise residential water tanks to build household resilience.

Beyond urban fixes, I support nature-based solutions that restore our taiao and uphold our values:

• Recharge aquifers through wetland restoration.
• Improve land use and catchment health halt gravel extraction, plant riparian zones, and reestablish wetlands.
• Reduce water allocations to protect river ecosystems.

Any proposal for water storage must answer hard questions:

• What’s the cost-benefit comparison between dams and distributed, nature-based solutions?
• How reliable is surface storage in a future of unpredictable rainfall?
• Will the dam worsen ecological stress during droughts if used for irrigation?

Let’s choose solutions that honour our whenua, protect our wai, and empower our communities not ones that repeat the mistakes of the past. Ive stated my position on the revived Ruataniwha Dam in the previous question. Enough public money has already been spent—any future development should be privately funded.As for the proposed storage dam on a Ngaruroro tributary, HBRC’s current commitment is to a feasibility investigation, and I support that process provided it includes mana whenua perspectives and cultural risk assessments, not just technical ones.

We must shift our approach to water resilience by:

• Mandating consultation with mana whenua on all high-risk developments.
• Strengthening floodplain protections to safeguard communities and ecosystems.
• Prioritising nature-based solutions like wetlands and riparian planting over concrete infrastructure.

Wetlands over walls. Resilience over risk.
Let’s invest in solutions that honour Te Mana o te Wai and uphold our collective wellbeing.

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?

I believe HBRC could be  doing more to reduce water demand across the region. The emphasis remains on supply-heavy infrastructure like dams, while demand-side solutions are underutilised. We need to shift our thinking from short-term fixes to long-term resilience.

Reducing water demand isn’t just a technical challenge it’s a mokopuna decision. It’s about making choices today that honour our responsibilities to future generations. As previously stated 

– Reduce over-allocation of water consents in stressed catchments.
– Restore wetlands and riparian zones to recharge aquifers.
– Halt gravel extraction to protect natural recharge processes.
– Embed mātauranga Māori and cultural risk assessments in water planning.
These aren’t just today’s solutions they’re tomorrow’s safeguards.

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?

I think alot more should be done Climate resilience starts with restoring our taiao and empowering our communities not waiting for the next disaster.”

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

I publicly supported the retention of the Māori Ward seats because they uphold the mana of tangata whenua in governance and ensure our voices aren’t sidelined , they’re central. These seats carry our stories, our struggles, and our solutions.  Our whānau deserve more than acknowledgment we deserve representation that reflects who we are.
I’ve seen firsthand the power of community when we stand together. In 2021, our people spoke through submissions and I stood among them, sharing our whakaaro with council and in 2024 HBRC voted unanimously to keep Māori wards. Today, I continue that journey not for titles, but for transformation.

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

Hawkes Bay needs to revisit the amalgamation discussion.

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

I’d want to see concrete examples of where similar models have worked and where they haven’t before committing.

If a Hawke’s Bay Auditor General could:
– Ensure transparency across councils, especially in Three Waters, climate adaptation, and environmental protection,
– Include mana whenua oversight and cultural impact assessments,
– And report directly to the public with clear, accessible findings

Then at this stage, I’m open to support exploring it further. But we need to ask: will it strengthen kaitiakitanga and community trust, or just add another layer of bureaucracy?