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

It’s in all ratepayers’ interests that the councils work together. If the Regional Council finishes up taking a district council to the Environment Court, then it’s the lawyers that win. Ratepayers on both sides lose. I’m not aware of the HRBC not being tough enough and I assume the CHBDC would feel that they’ve been very tough in regard to waste water in the past.

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’?

Its not reasonable nor practical to double our rates from now to pay for necessary flood protection. There is a need to balance cost with flood protection. Our Regional Council has had some success to date receiving central government funding for this work. For example, in Central Hawke’s Bay, 75% of the 13 million dollar cost of the Porangahau stop bank comes from central government while the remainder (25% funding) comes from HBRC.

This is part of the 242 million received from the central government’s North Island Weather Event Fund (NIWF).

We need to remember that no flood protection system can eliminate all flood risk.

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?

Our Regional Council owns 55% of the Napier Port, i.e. around 280 million of the total port value of a little over 500 million. The port makes up approximately 80% of the value of investments in the council’s investment company. So yes, there is significant concentration risk. For example: If Hawke’s Bay suffered another major earthquake where land, homes and the port were majorly damaged, HBRC rate payers would be on the receiving end of a double whammy because the Regional Council needs the income from the port to keep rates down. So, yes there is a strong argument to sell down the port and invest in better returning financial assets.

I would also support the Regional Council looking at some other ideas to create new income streams. Like doing a feasibility study into creating a business out of extracting and selling shingle from CHB river systems.

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 look forward to reading the feasibility and business case in 18 months time for the new Ruataniwha Dam in Central Hawke’s Bay.

I support the need for water storage in a summer dry region like Hawke’s Bay and both dams will need a user pays model to be successful. I don’t believe the Regional Council will be the future operator of either dam.

Many rate payers have made it clear that they do not want rate payers’ money spent on the construction of dam projects. We also need to remember that water is over allocated in Heretaunga and CHB/Tamatea, and water applied to highly producing horticultural crops on our fertile soils is good for our economy and is good for the environment.

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?

In a summer dry region like Hawke’s Bay it is natural that HBRC would look to encourage potential reductions in the region’s water demands. Irrigation equipment is improving all the time. At the end of the 1990s, Hawke’s Bay still had border dyke irrigation of pasture; today, modern irrigation equipment is precise and accurate.

There is also an opportunity for recycling of water where possible. For example, water that has been used for a processing plant could be reused as irrigation water on field crops.

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?

HBRC needs to be reasonable and practical in its approach to climate change. Farmers are in the environment every day, planting poles to slow soil erosion, fencing off waterways and riparian planting, while also carrying out their own pest control. Also a lot of good work is being done in the various catchment groups.

It’s the work on the ground that matters, such as improving flood resilience for our residents, supporting water storage as well as other nature based solutions. Two possible remedies include managed aquifer recharge where winter water is pumped into the ground to help improve ground water, and braided river recharge to help our ground water minimum flows in the summer months.

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

I encourage everyone to register to vote in the referendum, learn about the issue and to then vote.

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

I’ve always supported shared services where possible between councils. I’m always concerned for less populated areas like Central Hawke’s Bay, if they are being amalgamated with more highly populated areas. Generally

amalgamation is done on a ‘per population basis’ and the current Regional Council set up is an example of this where CHB only has one seat at the table out of 11 councillors (less than 10% of the vote) whereas CHB is comprised of nearly 25% of all of the land area of Hawke’s Bay. CHB’s voice in this system is less than it should be. It may be more sensible to integrate services with the close but similar sized councils to the south of Waipukurau.

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

My question would be: Who’s going to pay for that? If the Regional Council is paying, that means rate payers are paying again. Currently the Regional Council has an effectiveness and efficiency review going on, and in the long term plan the current Regional Council has reduced next year’s rate increase from 18% to 9.5%. So although I’m not happy about the rate increase, it is heading in the right direction. The government, some time after the local body elections, is going to announce some changes to the Resource Management Act which I suspect will lead to far less planners and red tape. This is likely to lead to less expenses at the Regional Council.