[Editor’s Note: As published in May/June Baybuzz magazine. Paul is especially critical of the HB Regional Council, suggesting it is “nose in front” as the worst. Ouch! This elicited a strong rebuttal — “let’s stick to facts” – from HBRC Chief Executive Dr Nic Peet, which you’ll find following Paynter’s assessment.]

In Wellington and even Christchurch the mayoral races are heating up and I love it. What you want to see are new faces, new ideas and the possibility, no matter how delusional it might seem, that competent and efficient councils could emerge. 

Here in Hawke’s Bay is seems that few want the job and that’s disappointing. I hear rumours of a couple who are fearful of the poison chalice. Our post-Gabrielle region is spluttering economically, mired in debt and those elected serve a public that hold them in low regard. What we need are change agents – those with the unrelenting courage and indefatigable will to turn things around.

The most obvious issue is the fiscal mismanagement of our councils.

Hastings District Council 

Former HDC Councillor Mike Donnelly says that when he served in the mid-90s the Council’s debt was $37 million and that there was much handwringing as to how that could be repaid. Now that debt is forecast to reach $700 million and thereafter onward to oblivion. Such mismanagement reflects poor leadership. In good times they dolled out cash to all sorts of interest groups and high-profile projects. When the bad times of the Gastro Crisis or Gabrielle arrived, their balance sheets were already in bad shape and the responses caused the debt to soar.

It’s a well proven principle that bureaucrats and politicians will spend money more unwisely and inefficiently than if they actually had to earn it. Councillors and CEOs also work on 3 years cycles and this doesn’t incentivise a long-term perspective. 

The great monument to HDC’s enduring folly is Splash Planet. Councils don’t know how to run businesses and to the best of my knowledge it’s never made a profit. The wise course would be to sell a 30-year lease to a private company for $1 so the rates that are wasted on propping it up can be put to better use. The first rule of bad habits is – stop immediately. 

I see a lot of other wasteful spending day to day. The most recent irritation is the $12.5 million architecturally designed, ‘sacred womb’ of a climate-controlled storage facility being build opposite Hastings New World. This will house the public collection of 90,000 items of precious regional taonga worth an estimated $30 million. 

So what’s with the illuminated adornments fitted to its exterior? It’s a shed posing as a prestigious community facility in a high-profile location. I understand sponsors who donate more than $10,000 to the shed will have their names engraved on the angle steel attachments that represent feathers. The uptake for this offer has been strong, suggesting a possible error in my thinking.

This building represents councils’ taking functional facilities and trying to turn them into ‘so much more’. This is not the actual museum but the storage shed for many items you’re probably unaware of and will likely never see. 

All this might be OK in more prosperous times, but both central and local governments look broke and in denial to me. We have to think radically about how we tame public sector spending. 

The soft solution would be just to build a minimalist shed on a cheap fringe industrial property. The more radical approach could be just keep the 10% most precious items in storage and flog the rest off at auction. I’m serious. For objects like Māori artifacts, buyers are required to be registered collectors and their purchases are tracked by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage. Private collectors take great care of these items and best of all, usually have them on display in their homes. I’ve been to many exhibitions where items have been loaned for the enjoyment of the public. Most owners are pleased to do so. 

Napier City Council

Similarly egregious is NCC’s resealing of the northern side of Brookfields Road. Since the bridge was destroyed in Gabrielle it’s become a ghost town cul-de-sac. The through-traffic of the past awaits a new bridge. So maybe we should sell the museum artifacts and build the bridge. Even if I am a heretic, at least we should poll the public to see where they’d prefer their rates to be spent. 

Even in this grumpy state I must admit that councils have some excellent staff and do some good work – just cut the provocation!

HB Regional Council

In the race for the Worst Council 2025 the HBRC looks to have their nose in front. 

In past engagement with their managerial types I’ve been dumbstruck. They recite phrases like ‘It’s their responsibility to discharge their duty under the Act’. This is an appallingly dull and simplistic perspective. The responsibility of the staff at all councils is to serve their communities. That should be a genuine challenge and result in a good deal of pride. 

Various Acts, regulations, policies and the like are merely mechanisms to achieve good community outcomes. If the regulations are poorly drafted or ill-conceived, then officers should seek a workaround or seek to have them changed. The very least they can do is to offer some constructive advice, as opposed to a blanket ‘No’ or a ‘We’d be happy to engage with your consultant’.

Not yet well understood by the public is the HBRC’s rollout of Plan Change 9, which reduces the permitted water use across the Heretaunga Plains. Despite several studies our aquifers are still not well understood. What has been concluded is that it would be prudent to cut water permits by about 40%. These cuts will be based almost exclusively on the actual take from each well from 2010 to 2020. So far this doesn’t sound unreasonable, but let me give you a personal example.

We leased land in 2020 which used to be in berry production and with a healthy water allocation. Most of the berries were picked in December when rainfall is usually such that irrigation isn’t required. Now we have an apple orchard coming into full production but the proposed water permit is going to be <10% of what we need. This reflects what was used on the berries a decade ago. Now I have a block nearby with more water than I need, so could I transfer that? No. I’ve abandoned several orchards that were destroyed by Gabrielle and are now too risky to replant. Can I use that water? No. So it looks like the block has no future. 

Most distressing is the enormous Fernie block, which spans either side of the motorway. It’s the last large tract of undeveloped land on the Heretaunga Plains. 

For many years the trustees were predominantly farmers who believed that grazing sheep was the most noble of endeavours, despite the economics. For the first time the land has been used for cropping this season and what crops it has grown! The only issue is that its water use 2010-2020 was low and so this new productive, profitable and job creating activity, seemingly has no future. The Plan Change considers that historic water use should be the basis on which land use is determined forever.

Of course the Plan Change doesn’t restrict urban use or the allocation of water for the forecast growth in population or housing. It also fails to require councils to reduce the 20% of the water that is lost through leaky pipes. 

I think producers can cope with a reduction in water allocations, but such changes must be pragmatically applied in order to create jobs and prosperity for our region. 

All this is symptomatic of councils that are out of touch with their communities. They need to get out of their ivory towers and engage with the people they purport to serve.

Expect this to become a very hot topic over the ensuing months. 

Paul Paynter is our resident iconoclast and cider maker. Weather permitting, he grows stuff at Yummyfruit.

Response to Paul Paynter

By Dr Nic Peet, Chief Executive of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Paul Paynter’s column in BayBuzz is certainly an interesting and provocative read, but when it comes to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, it misses the mark on several key points.

While Paul cheekily suggests the Council might be leading the race for “worst council,” his argument doesn’t back up the claim. We’ll take the jab in our stride — but let’s stick to facts when judging the form.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with his line: “Various Acts, regulations, policies and the like are merely mechanisms to achieve good community outcomes.”

Spot on — and Plan Change 9, which he references next, is a great example. Known as TANK (for the Tūtaekurī, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, and Karamū catchments), this plan has been 12 years in the making, built through deep consultation, science and collaboration. In short: the work may not be flashy, but it’s serious, necessary, and focused on achieving long-term outcomes.

The plan was developed through a collaborative, community-based process led by the Regional Council. Key participants included:

• The TANK Group: A collaborative stakeholder group comprising iwi and hapū representatives, primary sector groups (including horticulture and farming interests), environmental organisations, local government, and community members.
• Regional Planning Committee: Oversaw the plan’s development and provided governance and decision-making, including consideration of process options and engagement pathways.
• Tangata whenua: Māori and marae groups, particularly those with strong cultural and customary associations with the rivers, were active participants and submitters.
• The wider public: Engaged through formal submission processes and public consultation.

The column also claims that the Heretaunga Plains aquifers are not well understood. That’s simply not true.

In fact, our aquifers are among the most studied in the country. Comprehensive groundwater modelling — carried out by leading scientists and rigorously peer-reviewed — has clearly established the strong link between groundwater abstraction and surface water flows. 

The science shows, unequivocally, that taking groundwater across the Heretaunga Aquifer directly affects stream and river levels. There is broad consensus that we are taking more water than the aquifer and rivers can sustain.

Water management decisions are never made lightly. They are grounded in the best-available science. As new insights emerge, we adapt. But to suggest the system is poorly understood ignores years of robust research and informed decision-making.

The column references a land use change on a leased block less than five years ago. Given that the TANK Plan has been publicly discussed and widely understood for over a decade, it’s hard to believe any major change in land use — especially one driven by water needs — would be considered without first doing the due diligence to confirm whether the necessary water consent was in place.

The potential for changes to water allocation has been clearly signalled for years. The Plan Change itself was officially notified back in May 2020, following extensive public consultation. Anyone making land use decisions since then will have been well aware of the shifting landscape.

There is also an assertion that water take consent owners can’t transfer water allocations. This is not the case.

Under the new TANK rules, consent holders can generally transfer water within a catchment — provided a few specific conditions are met and the effects of the transfer are carefully assessed. That includes making sure it doesn’t negatively impact other groundwater users.

But here’s the catch: because the aquifer is already over-allocated, we can’t allow transfers of pre-TANK allocations. Why? Because part of the strategy to claw back water savings for everyone depends on recovering unused allocations from the old system. This approach is vital in minimising impacts on water users.

The Fernie Block was mentioned as an example. A groundwater transfer to that block has been applied for and is currently under assessment. It’s a real-time case of how transfers can happen under the right conditions. Bottom line: transfers are possible — but they’ve got to make sense for the system and the people who depend on it.

The assertion that the Plan Change doesn’t impact municipal use of water is incorrect. The TANK plan requires councils to develop and adopt demand and supply management planning and implement water use efficiency targets.

Municipal supplies are a critical part of the equation — not just to meet water efficiency and leakage targets, but to support smart growth as our population increases.

We were especially encouraged by this statement at the end of the column:

“I think producers can cope with a reduction in water allocations, but such changes must be pragmatically applied in order to create jobs and prosperity for our region.”

Absolutely. We’re already on the ground, working with landowners and consent holders to find practical, forward-thinking solutions.

Sustainably managing water is critical to the land, to the economy, and to everyone who relies on water in Hawke’s Bay.

Dr Nic Peet is