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?
This is such a curly, nuanced question right off the bat. I absolutely understand the pressure to keep housing affordable and available, but losing our best soils irreversibly harms our regional resilience. While housing and industrial development are essential for our district’s future, I reckon we’ve got to prioritise smart growth. That could involve intensifying housing within existing urban boundaries (and that might be tough for those who are very attached to their quarter acre paradise), redeveloping underutilised land, and directing industrial expansion to less productive soils wherever possible. Balancing growth with protecting our productive soils—the backbone of Hawke’s Bay’s economy—is critical. Council decisions should be guided by solid evidence, long-term planning, and community input to strike this balance fairly. I’m sure they’ve been working hard to hit that over the years, but the science, geography and population are changing at such a rapid rate that it’s a hard ask for any team to always make the right decisions.
2. HDC plans to spend $80 million over the next three years to improve water infrastructure? Is this appropriate and who should pay?
I mean, water infrastructure is a must-have, not a nice-to-have for public health, economic growth, and climate resilience. I’m no infrastructure expert but looking at other water infrastructure costs that other regions around New Zealand are facing ($511m sludge minimization facility like Wellington anyone?) our $80 million investment is necessary to fix our aging systems and meet stricter regulations. But we’ve got to ensure every dollar is spent efficiently. I’m a Hastings ratepayer, my annual rates increased by over $1000 in 2025 which is a 36% increase! At the end of the day ratepayers must contribute, but how do we do that fairly? Council could entertain phased increases to ease the burden. And central government should definitely assist (given water is a national priority) and we could introduce targeted user charges (e.g. for high-volume commercial users) to supplement rates. There are some vital water infrastructure improvements underway now, but there will be more over the coming years, so transparency in council spending and exploring innovative funding will be key.
3. Name 2-3 specific HDC projects, policies or spends over the past three years with which you personally disagree.
I don’t necessarily disagree with any of HDC’s projects, policies or spends over the past three years. Many things, as we know, can take years and years to actually roll out, and once the ball is rolling it can be difficult to stop. Households, creative groups or commercial sectors may feel short-changed if promises are broken or plans they supported and voted for are disrupted. Every civic project must directly serve our core needs in terms of infrastructure, safety, and economic growth. I do feel some discretionary spends seemed premature given our debt load, but, (and I may get up a few noses here) some degree of beautification and street art (within realistic budgets) is also important to sustain an element of community uplift, foot traffic and vibrancy during hard economic times. Neglected streets can deepen feelings of despair right? And that’s the last thing our district needs. I do question whether the council really exhausted all the efficiency gains they could have before raising our rates again? The other thing I’m wondering, is did our council push back against the government’s proposal to expand our Regional Prison to accommodate 464 more high-security inmates? As a ratepayer I don’t want our district to become a dumping ground for, as Siaam Daniel, the Takitimu candidate puts it, the failures of other government departments. It’ll be our people, our communities dealing with the consequences without much support. We need care, commitment and investment in our communities – not more prison beds.
4. Should residential water metering be introduced in the Hastings District?
For long-term water use sustainability, we do need a long-term plan and residential metering could be the way to achieve that. But here’s the thing. The community must be consulted, and a thorough, independent cost-benefit analysis is vital to prove that any long term savings justify the investment. We should follow Christchurch’s example where assistance is available for vulnerable households (i.e large families and those with water-centric medical needs like home haemodialysis) to keep things fair. It’s easy to see the benefits in terms of conservation, user-pays fairness, easy detection of leaks/faults and better management of our water resources and associated infrastructure, but there are just as many potential downsides too. So there needs to be clear communication so that we can all understand how metering reduces long-term costs and then perhaps prove those benefits by rolling it out in pilot areas to test it before introducing it district-wide. We could also consider some sort of phased approach by maybe starting with high-usage areas or ask for voluntary opt-ins?
5. Do you believe councils’ rates should be ‘capped’ by legislation?
This is such a prickly one, but I feel rate capping should be a last resort, not something legislated by central government. Absolutely we need to keep rates affordable, but not at the cost of letting our infrastructure crumble or of hollowing out local services. You’re never going to please all sides, but a one-size-fits-all cap kind of undermines local democracy don’t you think? Councils (should) know the realities of their own communities, whether that’s coping with population growth, preparing for climate impacts, or recovering from natural disasters like Gabrielle or the Napier floods. Tying their hands through legislation risks leaving them unable to respond to local needs in the way we need them to. But shoot, my latest rates bill for the year was $5612. The year before it was $4135. That’s one heck of a 36% bump right? So I get why capping council rates appeals. Who doesn’t want relief from steep annual hikes? Who doesn’t want certainty if you’re on a fixed income? Who doesn’t want their local council to be more efficient with their spending? But the evidence from places like Victoria, California, and the UK shows that rigid caps can end up costing communities like ours far more in the long run. Why? Because when you don’t let councils grow revenue, they’ll tend to defer essential infrastructure work, cut community services, and potentially (but hopefully not) shift costs into less transparent fees and charges. Over time, this erodes the very things that make our district livable. Things like safe roads, functioning stormwater and sewerage systems, libraries, public toilets, sports facilities, and well-maintained parks and pathways.
6. Do you personally support retaining Māori seats at your council table?
Yes.
7. Does Hawke’s Bay need five councils, or do you support amalgamation, in any form?
I don’t believe Hawke’s Bay needs five councils and I do support amalgamation so long as individual communities are ensured a voice at the table, because their local identity matters. I mean, this is something that could take up a whole magazine’s worth of discussion, but I look at Auckland pre-2010 when it was comprised of 8 different councils which led to inconsistent planning and huge inefficiencies. When they merged there were immediate positives in terms of unified regional planning and infrastructure development, economic efficiencies and economies of scale and much stronger regional branding, identity and investment appeal. If they can be a ‘super city’, I know that Hawke’s Bay can be a ‘Power Province’. The key will be making sure that any sort of amalgamated ‘council’ protects and preserves our urban/rural balance. That there’s watertight transparency and governance expertise and effectiveness for everybody across Te Matau-a-Māui.
8. Would you support Councils appointing an independent “Hawke’s Bay Auditor General” to monitor councils’ spending and programme performance?
I think this question brings out my naiveté because I had always assumed there’d be some sort of regular auditing of our councils spending and performance. So with that in mind I think yes, I would support appointing an independent ‘Hawke’s Bay Auditor General’ but with really clear parameters right? Someone like that would of course boost transparency and trust, but we’d need to make sure they weren’t costing us the earth in terms of bureaucracy. If they focused on our high-impact projects like water infrastructure and major roading contracts, performance metrics where they measure actual, ‘people-centric’ outcomes not just spending and enhance the public reporting of updates on all of the above being made accessible to all ratepayers, then that’d be a good start.
