The cost of promises

Voting has started in this years local body elections. After a week and a bit slightly over 20% of those eligible will have made their choice of representatives. If the trend of past elections is followed, this will have increased to a little over 40%. by the October 9th when all votes must be in.

Having opened my own orange envelope a can't help but feel one of the inhibiting issues keeping the vote down, is the complication of the system used for electing our Health Board.

It's hard enough finding candidates to support, without having to rank them as well. Of course it's a legacy of the Helen Clarke government and I think from a voting point of view we were lucky she ceased to reign, otherwise the system might have been added to all our ballet sheets.

Its likely some voters get through the mayoral section, find some councillors including the regional councillors, then are stumped by the health vote. Its human nature not to want to reveal a failure so perhaps these ballot papers are simply discarded. Certainly I have come across one voter who simply ticked those she wanted, not realising they also had to be ranked.

We all tend to try and influence others to vote the same way we do, but some go a little further. A large sign on St Aubins St in Hastings warning people “Our rivers are polluted” is a thinly disguised attempt to influence voters. Some who clearly feel it is aimed at them, have reacted in defense but have simply drawn attention to themselves and the message.

There have also been a series of candidate surveys that are possibly more interested in influencing attitudes, rather than finding out what candidates think. For example I was recently asked about fluoridation. I think its good but made it clear the community has a right to decide otherwise.

Quite a few candidates claim to be committed to sustainability or the environment. I always always look at the way they run their own lives because often this suggest unsustainable or anti environmental actions. For instance what sort of vehicle do they drive. I know of one lady who proudly urged people to vote green at the last general election with a huge sign in her garden, but had one of the smokiest home fires around.

Recently I was asked to fill in a questioner by our local newspaper. Questions related to the sports park, rejuvenating main street and amalgamation. There was no requirement to indicate costs and perhaps this should have been included.

One candidate wanted a light rail system connecting Napier and Hastings. Having watched near empty buses travelling between the city centres I am not at all convinced of the viability of such a proposal and believe the running costs would be horrendous. Not a problem of course because the candidate in question has no chance of winning and will probably loose his deposit for failing to reach the 10% threshold – again.

The Mayor wanted a first class hotel in the middle of Hastings to compliment the Opera House. Most people I know in the hospitality industry think it is a pipe dream but if a developer is willing to put up the money I have no problem, however I do worry about the likely cost to ratepayers of any concessions that might be made. Napier had a similar ambition a decade ago and went as far as buying up the wool exchange then demolishing it to make way for Te Pania. The developer went bust.

The Hastings Mayor apparently also wants an Olympic size swimming at the sports park on top of the velodrome and 3rd stage main building. The cost of all these could be nearly $50 million and it is hard to see rate payers wearing it.

I was very much more modest, suggesting more foot patrols by police, and affordable parking plus a few other improvements. I also suggested the one million dollars or so the council proposes to spend on widening footpaths, reducing the road width and reducing car parking spaces is a waste of money and is not wanted by retailers.

Because it is possible I might be elected Mayor I am determined not to promise more than I think can be delivered. It is better to be truthful about ones views

Candidates use a wide variety of measures to attract your attention , and vote. It also can take up a lot of time. Bill boards, fliers, meetings, newspaper, radio and even TV advertising, are all part of the mix I have used. Its all quite expensive and it is the candidates who put up the money. Only for the winners is it tax deductible.

Eventually however it is up to the voters to make some effort to find out what each candidate has to offer. If you don't then you have only yourselves to blame when you become unhappy with the outcome over the next three years.

Meeting the Regional Council

There are few opportunities to question our Regional Councillors in open forum but recently representatives of the hospitality industry met with aspiring and existing councillors.

As a board member of Hawke's Bay Wine Country Tourism Association I have an interest in visitor issues, and have watched the disaster of Venture Hawke's Bay from close range.

Nationally tourism is calculated to generate around 10% of economic activity and to create 10% of employment. Local figures suggest the visitor industry is at least this important to Hawke's Bay.

The Regional Council manages our RTO or regional tourism organisation, Venture Hawke's Bay which has been in the news recently after over spending its budget by $½ million in the past year.

One thing that stood out was the lack of importance given to this opportunity to meet the industry by most councillors. Only three saw fit to attend, including Elleen von Dadeleszen, Elizabeth Remmerswaal and Christine Scott.

Both the Regional Council Chairman Alan Dick and Chairman of Venture Hawke's Bay Neil Kirton failed to show. Aspiring councillors were rather better represented with five attending including Robert Burnside, Murray Douglas, Tom Belford, Tim Tinker and Hugh Richie.

It seemed to me the challengers had a much better grasp of the visitor industry than the councillors. All three councillors seemed unable to get past water quality issues trying hard to make somewhat vague connections to the visitor industry. This is not intended as a put down and I am not suggesting water is not important, just that it was not the purpose of the meeting.
The meeting was called by people involved in the Visitor industry to hear the views of all the candidates towards their industry, and in part because of general discontent with the Regional Council's handling of Venture Hawke's Bay over the past year.

Easily the best speaker from a commercial prospective was Murray Douglas who heads up the Chamber of Commerce. Murray has a great deal of experience in local government, but clearly also understands the both the Hawke's Bay economy, and the visitor industry.

Another excellent speaker was Tom Belford who publishes the monthly newsletter Bay Buzz. As expected Tom put more emphasis on environmental issues but also demonstrated an understanding of the visitor industry.

Local businessman Robert Burnside also seemed to grasp the key issues.

Tim did not make a huge impression on me.

Alas the candidate for Central Hawke's Bay Hugh Richie seemed not to appreciate that for a visitor industry to even get started, there must be transport. He started by expressing strong opposition to upgrading the airport claiming the bio security risk and border control costs were simply too high. The logic of his stance was hard to understand when there are already seven civilian points of entry throughout the country for international flights, plus two military air fields which also handle international services.

Of course for Hawkes Bay easily the biggest bio security hazard is the port. Already we have had major infestations of Argentinian Fire Ants and Southern Salt Marsh Mosquitoes. The port provides an essential gateway for our exports especially primary products which presumably includes the output from Mr Richie's farming operations so it seems he is willing to accept the biosecurity risk when he benefits, but not if it is someone else.

Of course agriculture with a $2 billion contribution to our GNP is worth far more than the visitor industry but on the other side of the coin offers much less opportunity for growth especially in the short term. If we are to lift the performance of the local economy, it is most likely to come from the visitor industry.

Overall I found the existing councillors disappointing. Remember they control the council that is in charge of our regional tourism organisation. Clearly they were asleep at the wheel when Venture Hawke's Bay was overspending its budget to the tune of half a million dollars. So, do they have what ever is needed to provide our future tourism needs.

I have serious doubts. In my view if these people are left in charge we will continue to experience the sort of performance problems we have been having. The no show of so many existing councillors is another issue deserving further mention. Regional councillors have lived in a sheltered unchallenged environment for far too long. Some have been on the council for over 20 years. Now they are being asked to front up in public they seem to be ducking for cover.

So for me the entire Regional Council is ready to be replaced by the new breed of enlightened, well informed prospects waiting in the wings. Alternatively the Regional Council should loose its involvement in the visitor industry.

Earthquake risk

The force 7.1 earthquake in Christchurch has inflicted $4 billion worth of damage on the city. Though it was frightening, 7.1 is not especially big. For every whole number increase in the Richter scale the amount of energy released increases by 10. So the Hawke's Bay Earthquake of 1931 was around 4 - 5 times bigger than the one that struck Christchurch. The Boxing day Indian Ocean earthquake off Indonesia that triggered the tsunami was 100 times bigger. That's pretty much as big as earthquakes get.

Looking at the television pictures I am amazed at the lack of reinforcing in so many of the buildings. Just brick plopped on top of brick. Little wonder it all fell down so easily.

Though this particular fault line was unknown, the risk of earthquakes to the city was well known. Just a few tens of kilometers away is the alpine fault, a fracture that extends the entire length of the south island. It is a close relative of faults that also pass through Hawke's Bay.

These fault tines are created by the impact of our planets Pacific plate grinding against the Australasian plate . Here in Hawke's Bay the former is diving under the latter but for much of the South Island the movement is horizontal.

There is clear evidence that at times in the past, hundreds of kilometres of the alpine fault line have moved at the same time. When this happens the result can only be a monumental earthquake of at least force 8 and possibly very much larger.

So to me it is a surprise the city of Christchurch was so ill prepared.

I was personally involved in providing media coverage of the Gisborne shake nearly three years ago and there as well was astonished at how easily so many buildings were seriously damaged. Christchurch now seems very like Gisborne was then though on a very much larger scale.

Hawke's Bay had its own disaster in 1931 but had also been warned only a couple of years earlier by a large earthquake centered somewhere close to Porangahau. Incredibly in the same area as our own recent rash of quakes, including a 5.3 shake.

Some took heed of the danger and most notable of these was the Public Trust Office. We have all seen pictures of their Napier edifice standing intact against a background of total destruction.

Woodford House school was also alarmed by the inadequacy of their architecture and demolished a near new classroom block to replace it with a seismic sound structure. This decision may have saved the school from being put out of business.

Since most of Napier and the most vulnerable structures in Hastings fell down the bulk of our older buildings are made from ferro concrete.

So where does Hawke's Bay stand today. My guess is most houses will survive a major shake mainly because they are built from wood. Likewise I feel most commercial buildings will still be standing or at least will stand up for long enough for everybody to get out unharmed.

The biggest danger I see are the other affects of ground shaking. Clearly liquefaction, or the way waterlogged sandy or alluvial soil takes on the properties of a liquid when shaken could be a problem. Probably more so in Napier than Hastings because the water table is often just below the surface, as evidenced by the many pumping stations around the city.

Under severe shaking structures could simply sink into the ground or could even be swallowed up completely.

For me the biggest risk is tsunami. Any great movement on the seabed would cause massive displacement of the sea and this could easily turn into a wall of water racing several metres deep across what we now think of as dry land.

Its even possible the land gained from the sea could be returned to the sea if the ground level drops.

So are we prepared. Well I think not. I have watched how we handle much smaller events such as the serious flooding around Tamatea a few years ago, and more importantly the South American tsunami earlier this year.

For a start we have an organisational problem. All three councils run their own civil defence operations. There seems to be nothing binding them together, and judging by their handling of the tsunami there seems to be total inconsistency on how to handle an emergency.

If a wall of water meters deep heads to the city how are the authorities going to get everyone out of the way. How are those without transport or mobility going to be saved? What are the chances of roads being impassable?

All roads out of the city need to be made one way instantly, and there must be a plan to open paddocks for car parking so the roads do not block up and become impassable. We may have as little as 10 minutes of opportunity to save people after which it could be too late.

Few of us have ever been involved in a real emergency rescues. If there is a plan who knows of it? What manpower will be available?

The only people I have any confidence in is fire and ambulance services who are used to dealing with emergencies. Unfortunately I am not convinced the police will make any great contribution. Even beyond the initial impact army and others from outside may struggle to get here.

Chances are the airport will be closed though perhaps Bridge Pa might be operational, however do they have generators to operate the runway lighting. One area where we do seem well endowed is helicopters but is there a plan to coop their services?

We don't want to become paranoid but my concern is , there is no plan, and no one capable of making a huge difference in an emergency situation.

Trans-Tasman air merger

The Australian regulator ACCC has turned down a proposed merging of trans-Tasman services by Air New Zealand and arch rival Pacific Blue.

And rightly so. This was a blatant attempt by our national carrier to reduce competition. In any other industry if two competitors were discussing the elimination of competition between them, they would be charged with anti competitive offences punishable by huge fines and even jail sentences.

While the Tasman is often said to have the most competitive air space in the world, this really only applies to services starting and finishing in Auckland where multiple airlines operate.

This move shows up Air New Zealand's anti competitive colours again. When they can't drive the opposition out of business as they did with Kiwi Air, Qantas New Zealand, and Origin Pacific, they resort to forming alliances. In 2006 it was a code share with Qantas, and most recently shared services with Pacific Blue, which they claim will result in more seats, more destinations, and lower fairs.

Highly unlikely.

We only have to look at Air New Zealand actions in recent years to anticipate what might happen. Two years ago when Air New Zealand monopolised services from secondary gateways such as Palmerston North and Hamilton they dropped them. Services out of Wellington and Dunedin were greatly reduced.

Only the arrival of Pacific Blue forced a rethink with Rotorua added to the trans-Tasman network to combat the reintroduction of services to Hamilton and increased capacity applied to Wellington and Dunedin by Pacific Blue.


Our own consumer watchdog the Commerce Commission seemed reticent to deliver a swift no , at least until the Australian equivalent the ACCC delivered its decision. In 2006 the ACCC saved us from the proposed Air New Zealand code share agreement with Qantas.

Imagine if Telecom wanted to combine with Telstra Clear, the Power Companies wanted to combine, or Supermarkets proposed a merger. It just wouldn't happen so why is this somehow different?

It seems New Zealand consumers have been saved by the Aussies again.

The real cost of building consents and approvals

In this country as is the case everywhere else in the developed world the building industry is a major driver of economy activity.

For instance it is lack of house building in the United States that is preventing the return of prosperity. Here in New Zealand a marked slowdown in housing and non residential construction is also causing concern.

When someone undertakes to build a new house, factory, or some other structure a wide range of resources are mobilised

Land must be prepared, roads, sewers and water supply installed. Utilities such as phone, electricity and gas must be connected up. Then the building starts in earnest. First the concrete people, then the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, roofers, and finally plasters, painters, and carpet layers.

Somewhere in the process are the real estate people, financiers, and local council staff.

This last group have a duty to maintain certain quality standards. Bad design work by draftsmen, and architects, poor construction techniques by builders and developers and a change in materials such as replacing treated timber with kiln dried wood has led to the leaky homes problem. In time this will cost Government, local authorities, and home owners billions in dollars to remedy.

I have struggled to understood how we could build homes for over 150 years without them rotting away only to have widespread failure in the past 20 years. Perhaps for much of history those in the industry assumed buildings could leak so certain safe practices were adopted to prevent catastrophic failure. For instance roofs were extended well out from the walls so any water not captured by guttering was thrown well clear of the structure.

I remember the designer of my last addition insisting on heavy duty water resistant felt being laid before the tiles were put down. He explained this by saying all roofs can leak the trick is to ensure no damage occurs as a result.

Luckily for Hawkes Bay people the problems seems greatest elsewhere especially in Auckland. Mediterranean style houses without eves in a city where it rains ever second day is clearly inappropriate.

The leaky homes problem has resulted in very much tighter building codes being introduced. It is the duty of local councils to approve all the design features and to sign off the work as it is done. No argument with making sure we do not have a repeat performance of leaky homes.

However over recent weeks I have come across many in the building industry who have experience major problems with the consent process, especially where the Hastings District Council is involved. Now everyone likes to complain about their council but the same people reckon the difficulties are nowhere near as bad in Napier.

The nature of the complaints are diverse.

For some it is the excessive delay getting various stages of construction signed off. The boxing may be in place, the reinforcing down but the concrete cannot be poured until it had passed inspection. In Napier I am told you can ring in the morning and someone from the council will be there that afternoon. In contrast in Hastings it might be next week, and apparently there is always an air of unhelpfulness.

For others it is the seemingly randomness of the decisions. Works can be in an advanced stage when new previously unmentioned demands are made.

I was looking around one small commercial building recently and was told the developer had decided not to proceed with a second project next door after his experience with Hastings District Council Staff.

I hear there are people who are not prepared to build in Hastings at all because of previous bad experience.

A friend of mine recently had a bay window installed. The design was submitted and approved and a bill for nearly 1000 dollars including GST submitted. The window was installed to the point a further inspection was needed before closing the addition in, at which point the construction was disallowed.

Apparently the drawings lacked sufficient detail to reveal possible problems even though the design had been approved based on the drawings.

OK its only a window, but it seems similar difficulties are being encountered with whole houses.

While these problems annoy developers, home owners, builders and a whole lot more, it is not their inconvenience that worries me the most. It is the damage it is doing to our economy.

Having to do additional work after the job is completed adds to the cost. Delays waiting for parts of the job to be approved mean having to stop work and trades people put on stand down. Then there is the cost of getting approvals. Apparently for a new house in the tens of thousands of dollars.

All of these things make building unattractive and if people decide not to go ahead then jobs are lost. In the current climate this is something we can ill afford to let happen.

In July Hawke's Bay was one of only five out of the country's sixteen regions to post a drop in residential building consents compared to last year. Commercial approvals also a dropped.

I cannot understand why the Hastings District Council is so difficult to deal with but in the minds of most of those in the building industry it is a huge problem.

Clearly there is a management issue. Perhaps there are not enough suitably qualified and experienced staff, or maybe its an attitude problem. Certainly senior council staff seem to regularly exhibit a belligerent attitude refusing to accept any shortcomings on their side.

This must change. We cannot have a small bunch of individuals holding the wider community to ransom. Council staff are the servants of the people not rulers. While they are subject to legal requirements they also have a duty to help, not hinder.

If the situation cannot be changed then perhaps the wrong people are running the operation. An alternative might be to sub contract the work, perhaps even to Napier where at least people seem much more satisfied .