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?

Hastings is both a food bowl and a growing district. It’s the balancing of these two positives that we can’t afford to get wrong.

We’re on the right track with the new 30-year Future Development Strategy, but there’s more work to do. It commits around 60% of our future homes to intensification. That’s up rather than out, so more homes are built within our existing suburbs, where pipes, roads and services already exist. For ratepayers, that’s the single biggest rates saver we’ve got, because it avoids kilometres of costly new infrastructure and protects the soils that employ and feed us.

But zoning alone doesn’t guarantee homes get built, or that they’re the right types. Our ageing population needs more single‑level, accessible homes. Young families need affordable first homes. Māori whānau are calling for more papakāinga. That’s why a balanced strategy matters. We need carefully staged greenfield alongside intensification, so we meet demand responsibly without undermining productive land. Already, this approach has helped move hundreds of people out of emergency accommodation into permanent homes – proof that careful planning delivers real results.

The same discipline applies to industrial land. The strategy protects key areas at Irongate and Omahu, where infrastructure and transport links already exist. That avoids scattering industry across productive land and makes sure jobs grow in step with housing. Getting that balance right is just as important as where we put homes, because families need both roofs and reliable work close by.

The next step is uptake. Through Council’s Strategy and Recovery work, Local Area Plans are being developed with communities. To make medium‑density genuinely attractive, people need more than a section and a roof – they need green spaces, public transport, and local shops and jobs nearby. Creating those conditions is what will really unlock uptake.

Looking ahead, we need ever better tools. Regional spatial planning gives us the chance to map our soils more precisely so we’re protecting the most productive land but not needlessly locking up land that could responsibly house families. In plain terms, it’s about drawing the map properly; knowing which paddocks grow our food best, and which areas can take homes without sacrificing what feeds us.

While more rural housing may well be part of the solution in the future and is appealing for some, spreading it widely before a spatial plan is completed means the potential for higher costs for everyone else (through expansive new infrastructure), and risks losing the very soils that underpin our economy. That’s why spatial planning and soil mapping matter.

We’re on the right track, but we need to keep refining. Government expectations, market demand, and climate risks are constantly shifting. Our job is to keep our plans agile and disciplined. That way we can protect the land that feeds us, while delivering homes and jobs so our kids can build their futures here.

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

Water is the foundation of everything else Council does. It’s what we drink, it’s what keeps our businesses running, and it’s what enables Hastings to grow. That’s why the $80 million planned over the next three years is not optional spending, it’s required.

The government has set much tougher water standards in recent years, and every council in New Zealand has to meet them. Even though Hastings has already invested close to $250 million into water infrastructure over the past eight years, we’re still looking at another $656 million over the next decade to stay compliant. If we don’t make those upgrades, we can’t guarantee safe water, we risk public health, and we shut the door on new housing and business growth.

Right now, most of the funding for this infrastructure comes from rates and borrowing. But the elephant in the room is how growth is funded. Under the way development contributions are currently set up, growth isn’t fully paying for itself, and too often, existing ratepayers end up subsidising the costs of new subdivisions. That’s not fair.

That’s why I’ve been clear that development contributions must change – so that when new housing or business growth goes in, it covers the full cost of the pipes, pumps, and connections it needs, without leaving existing households to pick up a portion of the tab. This isn’t about driving up costs or slowing housing; it’s about fairness and timing, so the people moving in help cover the services they’ll use. In the meantime, we’re already seeing some good practice, where developers who want to bring projects forward are funding the infrastructure up front to council standards. That’s the kind of partnership approach I want to encourage more of, so that ratepayers are left less exposed.

It’s also encouraging to see central government looking at reforms like development levies, which could give councils stronger tools to make sure growth genuinely pays for growth. Alongside regionalising water services with our neighbouring councils to improve efficiency and keep costs lower than going it alone, these steps all help take pressure off the average household.

My focus continues to be making sure Hastings households get the fairest, most sustainable deal possible.

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

There have been plenty of decisions over my time on council where I’ve voted one way and the majority has gone another. That’s democracy! You advocate, debate, and respect the outcome, even if it’s not what you wanted.

What I do want to highlight are the big costs we’ve had little choice but to shoulder, because those are the ones that hit households hardest.

The first is cyclone recovery. I want to be clear: I wholeheartedly support helping those left most vulnerable by Cyclone Gabrielle. What disappointed me was that, unlike in Christchurch where central government covered 100% of buyouts, Hastings ratepayers were left carrying a $50 million share of properties no longer safe to live in. In total, our local share of recovery is just over $230 million of a $1 billion package. I’m grateful for the support we’ve had from Wellington, but this disproportionate share has still driven rates up in ways no council could avoid, and left an inter-generational impact on our community, physically, emotionally and financially.

The second is tourism funding. When the Regional Council stopped collecting a region-wide rate for tourism, Hastings, Napier and CHB had to step in. That support wasn’t a blank cheque. Rather, it was a short-term funding fix while we work on a long-term plan, coming from reprioritised budgets so there was no extra cost to ratepayers. What it did do was safeguard 5,000 jobs and $774 million a year in local economic return. That’s money circulating through our cafes, vineyards, hotels, shops and attractions, supporting local wages and businesses. With central government investing heavily to draw visitors to New Zealand, it would be reckless not to ensure Hawke’s Bay benefits, because without a Regional Tourism Organisation, far fewer visitors will find their way here on their own.

The third is coastal protection. For years, reports piled up while coastal communities felt exposed. When the Regional Council made a decision to delay implementation of the Coastal Hazards Plan until 2027, Hastings knew protecting homes and council infrastructure couldn’t wait any longer. We stepped in with practical projects, including the new $800 thousand Te Awanga ecoreef. These are not easy costs to carry, but they were necessary to protect families and community assets.

For me, it comes down to this: I’ll always respect the democratic process, but I’ll also be upfront about the pressures that are forced onto councils. My job, as both Councillor and as Mayor, is to push back where I can, make the best decisions where I must, and always fight for the fairest deal possible for Hastings households.

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

Residential water metering shouldn’t be introduced right now. Installing meters in every home would cost $20-30 million, and Hastings is still reeling from the hundreds of millions we’ve had to shoulder after Cyclone Gabrielle. That’s why, as part of the Long-Term Plan working group, I supported taking meters off the table for now.

Households already pay for water through our rates. The bill is spread across everyone, no matter how much you use. Meters wouldn’t mean paying for water for the first time, they’d just change it to “the more you use, the more you pay.”

The problem is that higher use isn’t always about waste or luxury, it can be about need. A big family in Camberley may end up paying more just to cover everyday showers and laundry, while a household in Havelock might use the same amount of water on a swimming pool or a green lawn. That’s why any move to metering must build in fairness.

In the meantime, water use continues to be a key focus, with Hastings using around 44 million litres a day in summer – that’s about 18 Olympic swimming pools. That scale shows why every leak we fix and every litre we save makes a real difference, because we can’t take our water for granted.

Hastings already uses strategic meters across the network to track leaks, and repairing those saves far more water for far less cost than dropping a new bill on every kitchen table.

Longer-term, yes, water meters will almost certainly be part of our future. Our consent limits and growth pressures point that way. But they should only be introduced when they’re fair, affordable, and backed by the community – not by loading $30m debt onto households before Hastings can afford it.

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

Pressure on councils to deliver value is entirely fair. Families across Hastings are hurting from the rising cost of groceries, fuel, power – and rates. But rate capping is a blunt instrument that takes away local choice without fixing the real problem.

In the very places on which this idea is being modelled (New South Wales and Victoria) capping rates has led to deferred infrastructure, crumbling services, and less local say. That’s the path Hastings can’t afford, especially during cyclone recovery.

Here in Hastings, we’ve shown what happens when decisions are made locally, with our people. When New Zealand was in the grips of a housing crisis, our Council brought together government, iwi and private industry to unlock millions in external funding and speed up housing delivery. The result? The number of people in emergency accommodation reduced by more than 75%. That’s fewer kids growing up in motels and more homes for seniors to downsize to, creating supply for families.

Rate capping would hand bureaucrats in Wellington the power to override what Hastings people ask for in their own community. If locals want to prioritise fixing pipes, building housing infrastructure, or protecting services, those choices could be blocked if they fall outside a government-set cap.

What I support is genuine accountability, not caps. Hastings’ ratepayers deserve to see where every dollar goes, to hold us to account, and to expect discipline with their money. As Mayor, I’ll keep squeezing waste out of the budget and make every dollar work harder, but I won’t back a cap that forces Hastings to ask Wellington for permission before we can invest in our own future.

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

Yes, I support retaining Māori wards.

In 2021, we asked our community whether Hastings should establish a Māori ward, and more than 70% of submissions said yes. Council followed that clear direction.

That’s why I’m disappointed that, at a time when rates are already under pressure from cyclone recovery, our community is being asked to fund another referendum on a decision we’ve already consulted on.

For me, Māori wards are not about division, they’re about fair representation. Almost a third of Hastings residents are Māori, and having Māori voices at the council table strengthens decisions for everyone. I’ve seen that first-hand this term, with Māori ward councillors being some of the strongest advocates for keeping rates affordable and supporting low and fixed- income families.

This referendum is now in the community’s hands. Whatever the outcome, I’ll keep working to be a Mayor for all of Hastings.

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

I’ve long believed Hawke’s Bay would benefit from a stronger regional voice. Back in 2015, when amalgamation first went to referendum, I was running a business in Napier and living in our family home in Hastings. Even then, before I had ever considered entering local politics, I could see how much sense it made for our region to come together.

Cyclone Gabrielle proved it again. When we spoke as one voice, central government listened and millions in funding followed. We’re already moving that way. Hastings provides IT services for other councils, we’ve got the Mātariki Governance Group driving shared economic development projects, and water reform and building consenting are potentially shifting to regional entities. It’s fair to ask why we still need five separate councils.

But here’s the key: any move toward amalgamation must be staged, and it must protect our local voice. One strong regional council can deliver infrastructure and advocacy better, but communities still need a say in the decisions closest to them.

As Mayor, I’ll back practical regionalisation that reduces duplication, while making sure Hastings people keep the local representation they deserve. One voice where it makes sense, local voice where it matters.

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

I don’t support adding another layer of bureaucracy that ratepayers would have to fund.

Councils are already audited independently every year by the national Auditor General. The real issue isn’t whether we’re audited, it’s whether people can actually make sense of what’s reported.

Right now, each council reports in slightly different ways, and not always in language or formats that are easy to understand. What matters most is whether we’ve delivered what we said we would, not a new office or more red tape.

That’s why I support greater consistency and clarity in local reporting. If all Hawke’s Bay councils committed to presenting their spending and performance in the same clear, accessible way, ratepayers could see exactly what’s been achieved, where money has gone, and whether promises have been kept.

That’s accountability without more bureaucracy, and it’s what ratepayers deserve.