Simon Nixon Hawke's Bay NZ

The cost of promises

2010-09-28T20:16:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-28T20:07:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-11T15:46:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-11T15:27:00.000-07:00

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 .

One Job one pay

2010-08-25T14:50:00.000-07:00

Hawkes Bay Regional Councillors are paid a little under $50 000 a year each and Napier and Hastings councillors under $30 000 dollars a year each. The extra paid to Regional Councillors is supposedly due to the very much larger asset base the Regional council has which includes the port, leasehold land around Napier and significant assets held elsewhere.

While the regional council has done an excellent job in maintaining the value of these assets it must be remembered the key elements such as the port were inherited and are not as a result of good decision making by the present incumbents. I suspect if all that wealth has gone to the other two councils it would have all been dissipated by now on money loosing wasteful pipe dreams.

In addition to their base salaries many councillors are paid extra as chair persons of the many committees all three councils have. Typically this adds about $10 000 to their base income.

The Mayors and chairman of the Regional Council earn around $100 000 an amount that is probably appropriate for the job but still a good little earner especially as none of the present trio would be likely to get an equivalent paying job elsewhere.

The base salaries are not especially generous and there are councillors earning these amounts so some presumably have other jobs or other sources of income, and this is entirely understandable.

Others such as Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule have previously owned businesses or farms and clearly they have spent many years building up these assets and do not want to give them up.

Generally I am not especially interested in these activities as they have not been acquired or developed as a result of their council occupations. Most retain these interests as something to go back to, when they are no longer in elected positions.

Some however are involved in activities that might be seen as pushing the boundaries.

One that stands out in my mind is the present Mayor of Hastings. In addition to being Mayor he is President of Local Government New Zealand a job paying $84 000 a year when he took it over and presumably rather more now two years later. This job involves a huge amount of travelling away from Hawke's Bay something the Mayor seems very fond of. It might be interesting to know how many days or part days he has been out of the area over the past year or two.

In addition he is Chairman of the Regional Sports Park, a position the other trustees receive $15 000 a year for, and Chairman of the Pettigrew Green Arena. Until recently he was also on the Board of Venture Hawke's Bay another job most board members were paid $10 000 a year for.

While there are often calls for people holding public office to reveal their wealth as MP's are now required to do, I personally am less concerned with their wealth and more about whether they have to time to do the job they are elected to do.

Another local body politician that interests me is Regional Councillor Neil Kirton. A while back I noticed he held the title Eastern Police District Victim Support District Manager. A position I understand he no longer holds but with a name like that it sounds very important and well paid. I have no idea if it was a full time job but who knows for sure.

In addition to being a Regional Councillor Mr Kirton is Chairman of Venture Hawke's Bay which I understand to be another paid position.

Its probably worth while reminding listeners that Venture Hawke's Bay has been in the news lately for all the wrong reasons including a ½ million dollar overspend in just one year..

Perhaps the problem is the people charged with providing governance are simply too busy to put in the real effort needed.

The only other one who deserves a mention is perhaps the Mayor of Napier. Though never publicly mentioned it seems she is or has been involved in a Wellington based business providing training for school boards of trustees.

I imagine these boards need all the help they can get, and the present school governance system goes back several decades so it is possible this involvement started well before the Mayor became Mayor.

There is nothing in anyway illegal about any of these activities. The point I am making is when people are elected to represent the community we have a certain expectation of unencumbered commitment. Clearly to a greater or lessor extent we are not always getting it.

So this is my suggestion. Rather than demanding a breakdown of assets held by local government officials we should be provided with a list of other income earning occupations or commitments especially those in anyway linked to their elected positions so at election time we can be sure the people we are electing are going to be available to do the job.

Anyone wanting to be elected must understand they are doing it so they can contribute to the community, not for the money.

Picking a candidate

2010-08-25T14:43:00.000-07:00

It is generally acknowledged that local Government rates are increasing very much faster than prices generally.

We all know Government especially the last one piled increasing responsibility onto local councils effectively shifting the burden and this certainly had an effect on costs, however I think much of the reason is due to the people running local government, especially our elected representatives.

Being a local councillor requires no qualifications what so ever, other than being able to persuade voters to support you. There no vetting, no checking qualifications and experience, nothing in any way to ensure a candidate is capable of understanding the issues and making informed decisions.

A person could be illiterate and still turn up meeting after meeting voting on all sorts of issues of major importance to the community, without understanding anything of the subjects involved.

As Councillors often have no idea what they are doing this has to be one of the reasons Local Government administrators have become so powerful. Now in contrast to the elected representatives the management are cleaver people. Often very cleaver, highly qualified, and very influential.

But both the governance( that is the councillors) and Management have one very serious short coming, and that is they lack practical experience in the real world. They live in a feather bedded environment where the consequences of getting things wrong are not especially onerous.

Whether previous experience is important or not probably depends on what else you have done in the past. For some, previous council experience is probably the only relevant qualifications they have. Often you can pick these people because they reappear election after election hoping for the certainty of another 3 years guaranteed employment.

Now councils are huge enterprises. Here in Hawke's Bay the Napier, Hastings and Regional Councils all have a turn over in excess of 50 million dollars a year. That puts each of them in the league of big business.

Ask you self would you feel confident of our councillors running some major business? I know I wouldn't.

As many of you will know I am one of the candidates seeking public office, and I am often asked about my lack of previous local body experience. Frankly I think it is my experience outside of council that makes me qualified.

I don't want to go through all the details though I have had some senior positions in very large companies. Along the way I have picked up some very useful skills, but is as a small business owner that I have acquired the survival skills that cannot be learnt working in local government, or even in big business.
When I make a mistake, fixing the problem comes out of my pocket. So I have got quite good at learning from anything that goes wrong, and I go to great efforts to not making the same mistake twice.

In a small business you are in charge of production, marketing, finance, human resources and everything else.

Small business owners often work for very little , sometimes for quite a long time before starting to enjoy the fruits of their endeavours

In the real world making a mistake can be catastrophic. No ratepayers to pick up the bill. Get it wrong and you're bust – kaput- bankrupt. No income, no business perhaps no house

This is a world most council employees and many councillors simply can't imagine. For them getting it wrong simply passes the cost on to ratepayers. Most councillors and many staff would struggle to get an equivalent job in the private sector.

Remember the disaster when the Auckland Regional Council bought the LA Galaxy and star David Becham to New Zealand. A seven figure loss paid for not by those responsible for the disaster, but by ratepayers who had no choice in the first place, and none when it came to paying.

In Australia a number of councils were caught out by the sub prime mortgage fiasco collectively loosing several hundred million in the process.

So what is my point.

You can normally judge the suitability of people by their past performance. Those representatives with a history of association with bad decisions will probably continue to make make bad choices.

If you don't vote, or make your choices for very superficial reasons then you will likely get the sort of representatives that will eventually make you very unhappy.

People that are very enthusiastic, very persuasive, and have lots of ideas, may lack a sense of realism and that may cost you dearly.

Pushing idealism over realism is often why councils get it so wrong so often, when they stray from the things they do well like roads, water, sewerage, rubbish and other basics.

Everyone makes mistakes but not every one learns from them.

Remember vote for those people you actually want or you will likely end up with people you don't want.

Vote carefully my friends. There is no 90 day probation period. It takes 3 years to correct bad choices.

Local Government Elections

2010-08-25T14:33:00.000-07:00

The process to elect people to represent our interests on local councils has started.

For the people of Hawke's Bay this means one of: the Hastings District Council, Napier City Council Central Hawke's Bay District Council or Wairoa District Council plus the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and Health Board. Some voters also get to select a member of the rural community board.

For our local council we get to choose a Mayor and councillors, but for the Regional Council and Health board we do not select the chair person.

In both Hastings and Napier everyone gets to vote for the Mayor but for councillors there is a ward or electorate system that effectively allocates some positions to represent specific suburbs. In Hastings these are Hastings city 6, Havelock North 2 , Flaxmere 2 Heretaunga 2 and the farming areas of Kahuranaki and Mohaka 1 each.

In Napier the system is a little different because some positions are allocated to wards and and others are councillors at large.

Six (6) Councillors will be elected at large across the whole city and Six Councillors will from four (4) wards :

Ahuriri 1, Onekawa-Tamatea 1, Nelson Park 2, Taradale 2

Nominations have now closed and but voting will not start until Friday Sept 17th and will continue until the final day of polling in October .

All local government voting is by postal ballot. If you have enrolled on the parliamentary roll, you will be on the roll for local government elections, and every ratepayer is automatically enrolled. For those who are newly arrived in the area or have changed address and are renting, it pays to check you are enrolled if you plan to vote. This can be done at local libraries or at the council offices.

There are no preliminary results though some indication of the turnout is normally announced throughout the voting period. At best only about 40% actually choose to participate, meaning 6 of every 10 do not vote. I will come back to the reasons shortly. Voting is not compulsory.
The councils all use the FPP system meaning the winner is the person with the most votes. Preliminary final Election results are released a few hours after polling closes at 12.00 noon on Saturday October 9th . Though all voting papers must be with the councils before that time, there is a delay of a few days in getting a final, final result because the votes must first be sent to the counting station.

Local councils and the Health Board can have quite an impact on our lives. Just about all the roads are built and maintained by councils, not as some may assume by Government.

Water supplies, sewerage, rubbish, libraries, are all council services, and we tend to take these things for granted. Perhaps the easiest way to think about it, is councils provide all the things we need and use on a daily basis.
In contrast Government tends to do the big things like the police, defense, design the laws, and run the country when dealing with other countries and make welfare payments including superannuation.

Generally council rates take less of our money than government, but rates must be paid whether you earn anything or not so for some people rates are quite an onerous expense. When the people standing for office promise you something you can bet it will cost you.

So voting in local body elections is important.

Now I mentioned a little earlier that 6 out of ten people people don't vote and the obvious question is why not?

My view is it is not because the issues are not considered important but because its difficult to relate the issues to the people standing.

There are no parties so we must choose individuals, and the individuals are just a list of names most of whom we have never heard of.

As a result existing office holders have a huge advantage because their names are more likely to be recognised than new and unknown people.

From a practical point of view the avenues for publicity are limited to leaflets, billboards, and a little bit of advertising.

There are some meetings arranged by third parties but in the case of the Hospital Board and Regional Councillors there were no public meetings last election. This in my opinion is why so many Regional Councillors have been in office for so long, many for seven terms or just over 20 years.

The amount that can be spent is strictly controlled. For community boards its $3500, for Hastings between $7000 and $20 000 depending on population, and for the Hastings Mayoralty $40 000.

In the past voting used to be on a specific day, much like the general election when we choose our Government. As only a small percentage voted it was decided to change to postal voting. The numbers are probably not much different.

When filling out the voting papers it's worth remembers you don't have to vote for every position on the ballot sheet. If you can see only one person that you really want, then you should vote for that person only. If you add additional names you may end up effectively voting against the one person you really want.

Ultimately the thing to remember is “if you don't vote you cannot complain about what subsequently happens”.

Venture Hawke's Bay

2010-08-04T19:04:00.000-07:00

It has become apparent that on top of everything else there are significant financial problems at Venture Hawke's Bay.

As most people do not have a clue what this organisation is all about

Although I have no direct involvement in VHB and have met only a few of the staff as a board member of HBWCTA I thought I would try to explain a bit about this mysterious organisation. .

Even my very limited contact has always left me with concerns, mainly I think because I did not have a lot of confidence in many of those involved.

The purpose of VHB is two fold. To foster economic development, and secondly to act as regional tourism operator.

I strongly support economic development. We have low incomes, high unemployment, low population growth, and feature on the wrong side of many health statistics.

We also need to be more successful in attracting visitors. For the past several years our numbers as measured by visitor bed nights have been dropping at a rate that puts us seriously into negative territory, and makes us one of the worst performing areas in the country.

Around 2003 the Napier and Hastings Councils combined with the Regional council and agreed to provide an additional $200 000 each on top of funding already being provided for tourism development bringing the total budget funded incidentally by ratepayers to a little over $1.2 million a year.

This organisation became Hawke's Bay Inc with former former Hawke's Bay Regional Council Chairman Ross Bramwell as its first Chair person. The first two Chief Executives departed quite quickly and the third Janet Takarangi was appointed in 2008. As best I can fathom it was during this period that quite substantial financial reserves were built up effectively because for much of the time there was no Chief Executive on the payroll

A year later both the NCC and HDC decided to stop their funding and pass control and responsibility for funding to the Regional Council. Effectively this was a sneaky way of increasing rates because the RC introduced a new targeted rate where as previously it had been funded from existing council resources. If you look at your regional Council rates bill you will find a specific sum dedicated to paying for VHB.

At the same time Ross Bramwell stood down and was replaced by long time critic Regional Councillor Neil Kirton. There seemed to to have been endless problems over a long period with the accuracy of the financial reports. We can only assume the Regional Council headed by Andrew Newman were more than happy to take on this additional responsibility. They probably saw it as an elevation of their regional status.

A board was appointed consisting of representatives of the 3 councils, and at least 3 people with commercial backgrounds. The board however, and this is critical, was not a governing board but a consultative board, meaning financial control was in the hands of the Chief Executive, the Chairman Neil Kirton and the Regional Council Chief executive Andrew Newman.

Staff numbers then built up rapidly with at least 17 positions on the establishment. Additionally several consultants seemed to be engaged on various assignments.

Throughout 2010 the whole empire has been unravelling. A $130 000 advertising campaign based around a $57 000 animation was intended to boost visitor numbers over summer, but fell foul of many accommodation providers especially Moteliers.

Numbers may have lifted slightly in January but the depressed state of the industry continued unabated. There was continuing and ever more shrill criticism, until in June 2010 the Chief Executive decided to leave.

Rumors about the financial plight have been circulating for quite some time but now the balloon has gone up.

The nearly half million dollar deficit is a major blow out and only about half can be funded from reserves. The rest will come from a loan from the Regional council to be repaid over 5 years meaning there will be less money for essential work in the future. Clearly this is a disaster and the situation is not sustainable.

At a recent meeting of tourism interests Regional Council CEO Andrew Newman was a key speaker. He talked about some of the problems and indicated there would me more redundancies both to bring expenditure down, and to free up money for promotional activities. I felt there was a lack of acceptance of accountability, and I saw no evidence of a plan to move forward.

The simple fact is ratepayers are being billed over a million dollars a year to support an organisation that seems to have had few successes. The decisions relating to VHB are traceable to the Regional Council and with elections looming now is the time to be asking the hard questions.

Clearly ratepayers will not tolerate a further increase in the targeted rate, and why should they. There is little evidence the money already spent has produced any lasting benefits.

Funny Money

2010-08-02T17:29:00.000-07:00

Recently the Hastings District Council announced a contribution to the sports park from the Lotteries Commission, a fund set up specifically to fund such community projects. This is the second donation towards the park that is clear of scandal and not an effective ratepayer payout. The other was from Hastings Pack and Save towards developing the netball courts.

Contributions from the Hawke's Bay Regional Council, and Unison are either rates funded or are from some sort of compulsory levy, and are not given freely by those who are actually paying. There is no little box on our rates demands and power accounts allowing us to support or declining these payments.

I am not going to get into the details of the Higgins donation, but in my opinion awarding millions of dollars of contracts in return for a donation does not constitute a donation as was claimed by the Hastings Mayor. The process may have been cleared by the Audit Office but that investigation was requested by Council rather than being the result of a complaint. Personally I find it shady and not the sort of thing any council should be getting up to.

Buried in the Hastings District Council estimated for at least the past two years has been the sum of one million dollars intended as a contribution from Hastings towards the planned extensions to the museum in Napier,

It seems there might be a similar sum in Napier being set aside as a possible contribution towards the Sports Park. No doubt when the appropriate decisions are made to release these monies there will be much fanfare and toasting by the two Mayors.

We should see the situation for what it is. Rather than admitting to pouring money into the park and the museum, the councils are simply swapping cash and calling it a donation. Hastings will give Napier a million dollars and Napier will give Hastings a million dollars. In no way, shape, or form, are these true donations.

Ratepayers in both councils need to realise they are about to be conned.

Somewhere in all this nonsense it also seems to be forgotten that at the time Nelson Park was sold an undertaking was given to allocate $3 million of the proceeds to central city green areas. That is, $3 million of the $17 million net received from the sale. So far there is no sign of this happening, and while in due course something will be done, the reality is the Sport Park has already gobbled up all the proceeds from the sale.

The sports park funding seems clouded in secrecy and misleading disclosure. Recently I attended a public meeting on the subject. For some strange reason it was chaired not by the Mayor who is also Chairman of the Sports Park, but by Ross Bramwell former Chairman of the Regional Council and also Hawke's Bay Inc.

I asked about the cost of water and waste water services. These services are likely to be very expensive, for instance waste water will require a three Kilometre pipeline. The Mayor claimed both water and wastewater costs were in the budget but I have my doubts.

I also asked about roading upgrades for both Evenden and Percival Roads and was informed by the Chief Executive that the cost was included in the LTCCP and not the park estimates. I have yet to find the amount but clearly it is likely to be in the millions of dollars as well.

I think other Sports Park costs are being buried. A chief executive has been hired and now the position of Recreation Programmer is being advertised. There have also been significant fund raising costs including the $300 000 a year paid to Kelt Capital.

Clearly contributions to the park are not paying for these expenses.

Its a pity the Mayor and the clutch of tame councillors who seem to fall into line every time a contentious issue arises, find it necessary to support this lack of transparency. It is giving the sports park a bad image.

Though I have always disagreed with the Sports Park location, the athletics track and grand stand were always going to be built somewhere once Nelson Park was sold.

The velodrome is a new new idea but I have come to the conclusion that provided a Government contribution can be obtained we should support it whether we are cyclists or not.

Our visitor industry is in the doldrums. We need attractions that will bring more people here. With the only other indoor velodrome located at the bottom of the South Island we should get a useful boost should our efforts succeed.

But it is difficult to to determine either the costs or the returns, when the Hastings District Council is determined to conceal critical financial information that might help people make an informed decision on the issue.

Gisborne Rail link

2010-07-29T02:01:00.000-07:00

There has been much recent agonising over the future of the Rail Link between Gisborne and Napier

Certainly one or two trains a week pulling just a couple of wagons, or a load of super phosphate fertiliser hardly seems sufficient to warrant the cost of keeping the railway going and some think it is time to close the line down.

Others want the line kept open because of an expected long term increase in wood products.

So are those who want to keep the railway line operating futuristic, or futile?

When the line was first envisioned in the 1920's circumstances were very different to the present. Gisborne was even more isolated than it now is with an over night ferry service to Napier while road transport was in its infancy.

Hawke's Bay had been connected to Wellington in the 1880's and the main trunk line from Auckland to Wellington opened in 1908. The Gisborne line was one of the last major rail links to be built in New Zealand and was severely restrained by Depression era finances. It did not reach Gisborne until 1942 during WW2.

War time needs and fuel rationing meant the line provided an essential link back then but now rail must now compete on price and convenience with trucks.

There was a time when many large manufacturers had their own railway siding for convenient access to the rail system, but now for many using rail means multiple handling transferring freight to the rail head the loading it onto wagons.

Rail can work but but for bulk loads such as Solid Energy shipping huge quantities of export coal from the West Coast to Littleton.

Like wise Fontera would struggle to transport the huge volumes of milk from Oringi near Dannevirke to Harwara if it could not load it onto several trains a day. In Australia rail lines are used to ship bulk products such as iron ore and coal from the mines to the ports.

The line to Gisborne simply isn't in this league. Heinz Wattie's tried shifting bulk tomatoes in the the 1980's but they soon found having trainloads of ripening tomatoes all arriving at once did not suit the continuous needs of their production line processing.

Even shipping logs means multiple handling, but much is being made of the so called wall of wood expected out of Gisborne in the next few years, and containerised loads of processed wood products may be a different matter. .

Internationally passenger rail is making a huge comeback but this involves specially engineered systems capable of handling speeds of 200mph (320Km) and more. Such services offer travel times that are competitive with flying for distances up to 1000Km .

Passengers traffic also seem unlikely to return to rail, even though travelling by train seems a much more attractive proposition than bus or even car. It seems highly unlikely high speed rail will ever operate on New Zealand's narrow gauge single track system, and even less likely such trains will ever link Gisborne and Hawke's Bay.

Additionally Gisborne does not have the same inter dependence with Hawke's Bay that it once had. Rail is no longer practicable for all those passengers travelling north to places like Auckland.

One thing a rail system needs is reliability and the line to Gisborne has suffered some major problems over recent years. During Cyclone Bowler in 1987 a major wash out just south of Gisborne put the line out of commission for well over over a year, and a few years ago a Bridge collapsed at Nuhaka again making the line unusable for many months.

On the other hand rail can be an important alternative. For a time after the main road bridge at Wairoa collapsed during Cyclone Bowler the only way the two halves of the town could be connected was by using some old freight carriages pulled by a freezing works locomotive then based in the town. .

Undoubtedly energy prices will keep rising and shifting freight by rail is very fuel efficient. This might eventually make rail competitive again though there are many other costs considerations that need to be taken into account. Electrification is also possible but unlikely.

There have also been calls to convert the line to a cycleway as happened in Central Otago. This could boost tourism but requires that the tracks be ripped up.

While there are occasional railcar and steam train excursions, these are not regular users. Even in Central Otago the heart of tourism country, the steam train powered Kingston Flyer seems unable to attract sufficient patronage to be profitable..

It is likely to be many years or even decades before conditions are right for rail between Hawke's Bay and Gisborne to be viable.

Unless Government is willing to keep propping up the line then closure seems inevitable.

The only practical solution seems to be if services are put on hold, the system should be left in place, because provided the tracks are still there, the line could be recommissioned. If the tracks are ripped up that will be the final curtain for the rail system, for ever.

Road safety

2010-07-17T15:51:00.000-07:00

The results of a new state highway evaluation method called Kiwirap or Road Assessment Programme saw all state highways in the country classified into one of five groups, from one star to five star.

The method judges roads according accident density or the number of fatal and serious accidents per kilometre of road.

There were no roads anywhere with one star rating, nor were there any roads judged five star though some sections under the minimum 5 K length met the five star requirements.

Four star highways or roads with only minor deficiencies, were all in either Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch. In Wellington about two thirds of the length of the highways was deemed to be four star, while only one quarter were two star.

In Hawke's Bay all roads were judged two star. That is all state highways had major deficiencies such as poor alignment and roadside conditions .

Hawke's Bay roads were judged some of the poorest, and we have two of the three most dangerous roads in the country. SH 2 from Napier to Hastings was number one , and SH2 from Napier to Bay View was number three.

This is highly unsatisfactory. I have already commented on how we seem to miss out on so much meaningful Government expenditure. Recently the New Zealand Transport Agency called for tenders to build one of New Zealand's most expensive-ever roading systems, the two billion dollar 4.5-kilometre long Waterview Connection in Auckland, linking the Southwestern motorway with the Northwestern motorway.

On a per capita basis if we were to get that sort of money we would be getting $200 million. Some important upgrades are now underway including the southern extension of the expressway, road straightening at Dillans hill on SH5 to Taupo, and the Matahura Gorge deviation on the road to Wairoa.

The out of town upgrades are good especially for trucks, but traffic volumes mean these roads are not deemed as dangerous as the two worst sections of SH2.

I was disappointed but not surprised there was no comment from our local government leaders. They seem more interested in gaining funding for pet projects rather than fixing life and death issues.

Bad driving does cause accidents and there has been some talk of lowering the speed limit to 80K, but the present limits are appropriate for major arterial roads.

The problem is lack of money to fix the problems. Making it easier to pass and having more slow lanes for turning traffic would help. At the Marine Parade end of SH2 there are large Norfolk pines, and near Hastings deep ditches on both sides of the road. The ditches could be piped removing one obvious danger while at the same time providing more space for slow vehicles and turning traffic.

Some accidents involve pedestrians and cyclists and even more effort is needed to provide a continuous walkway/cycleway between Napier and Hastings, starting where there are bridges.

There is now firm evidence there is a problem, so we must act. We need to make a better case for some serious spending. We need to prioritise safety and efficiency. Lets do so before we are dealing with another fatality.

Marineland

2010-07-17T15:44:00.000-07:00

Two years after Marineland's last dolphin Kelly died and the attraction closed to the public there has been no decision about the future of the facility. Many marine animals and birds continue to live there, either because they are sick or because they would not be able to survive in the wild.

For nearly 4 decades Marineland was a unique New Zealand attraction allowing close up contact with a range of marine birds and animals, especially dolphins.

Unlike most other council owned businesses in both Hastings and Napier, Marineland was was not a huge drain on ratepayers pockets, and even with just a solitary dolphin could still pull in the audiences. Not just locals but people from throughout the country, and from overseas. Marineland helped pump millions of dollars into our economy

So with the closure of Marineland we have lost an important magnet, and almost certainly this is contributing to the general malaise in our visitor industry.

Moteliers in particular believe the drop off in families a group that seemed most likely to visit Marineland, is especially pronounced.

The visitor industry is especially important to Hawke's Bay contributing perhaps 10% to the economy overall. While we remain a major holiday destination with Wine and Food and Art Deco the mainstay attractions, supported by events such as the Mission Concert and Horse of the year these are all very seasonal. Marineland was a year round attraction making it especially valuable.

An independent report in 2006 calculated an overall contribution of $5 million to the Napier economy and also claimed Marineland was the top priority for many visitors.

So what are we going to do about it?

Other countries including Australia and the USA have dolphin attractions so replacing the dolphins is a possibility, but catching live dolphins at sea and keeping them in captivity is not an option. This would require an upgrade of the facilities and the cost could be prohibitive.

The reality is all four dolphins at Marineland lived well past their expected lifetime in the wild, so clearly they were well cared for once they assimilated to the conditions.

There has also been talk of turning it into a butterfly house or other similar attraction, but it is hard to imagine such a facility having anything like the benefit to the visitor industry.

Since the Napier City Council is already paying for the staff, keeping the facility open during school holidays, or for weekends is surely an option. The seals and other and other marine animals are still an attraction.

The Friends of Marineland Society suggest $2.5 million has been spent over recent years just evaluating upgrade proposals. If true it might have been better to have spent this money keeping it open.

It is time for openness by the Napier City Council with all the cards laid on the table so the people can better judge the options, rather than leaving the decision solely to an elite who seem committed to tucking the place away.

For the moment Marineland seems to have become nothing more than a bus stop and continuing complaints suggest it is not doing especially well in this new role.

Hawke's Bay Airport

2010-06-24T15:53:00.000-07:00

The announcement suggesting the Hawke's Bay Airport upgrade was about to start, looked positive but was really more of a public relations exercise and photo opportunity.

Many people have been fooled into believing competition is arriving and they can expect lower airfares. In fact this is highly unlikely because those involved have decided to build a runway that is just 150 metres too short to be sure we get the services we really need.

Just why the runway is to be extended to 1750 metres instead of 1900 metres defies logic. Almost certainly it is guaranteed to fail.

Three of those claiming credit are the very individuals who have held the project up for the past 6 years. The Mayors of Hastings and Napier, and Airport Chairman John Palairet failed to act as they should have after being warned of serious shortcomings in the 2004 Pricewaterhouse report on the airport.

Instead they dithered inflicting tens of millions, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars of economic damage on the Hawkes Bay economy.

This is now showing up in depressed visitor statistics, subdued business activity and reduced spending power in our community as millions of dollars are unscrupulously syphoned out by excessively high air fares. The drop in visitor numbers is conservatively estimated to be costing the region at least $10 million a year.

We have lost many important employers over recent years and those remaining complain of both the high pricing and the inflexibility of Air New Zealand services.

Transport is essential to our economy. Air Transport essential for it to function efficiently. Some 400 000 people a year use air travel because of convenience, urgency, safety and practicability The fact numbers are down about 10% on 2 years ago delivers a clear measure on the true state of the Hawke's Bay economy.

No other airport in New Zealand attempts to operate jets from 1750 metres. While very limited services will be possible the slightly lengthened runway will impose restrictions that will make scheduled jet services less likely.

Those who loosely claim competition is just around the corner might like to explain just which aircraft will be able to operate commercially from the new runway.

One thing is clear the $5.5 million extension will not enable trans-Tasman services, ever.

While Airbus A320 jets as flown by Air New Zealand will have some capability to provide domestic flights, the airline has made clear their opposition to flying jets into Hawkes Bay. In the past they have gone so far as to threaten legal action to prevent development charges being imposed to finance a runway extension

Jetstar also operate Airbus A320 aircraft but look unlikely to fly here. So far they offer services only to the three main centres plus Queenstown. Since they have not opted to service smaller centres its hard to imagine why might they come to Hawke's Bay?

The third domestic carrier is Pacific Blue, who fly Boeing 737– 800 aircraft to the three main centres, Queenstown, Dunedin and Hamilton. They seem more likely to be interested in adding Hawke's Bay to their network. So, has Pacific Blue stated the runway will be of sufficient length for commercial operations?

At best we might see the occasional Air New Zealand charter or non scheduled flight in support of events such as the Rugby World Cup, but achieve little improvement in the outrageous pricing that is doing so much damage to Hawke's Bay.

It seems strange that both Mayors have been quite willing to sink more than 100 million dollars into conference venues, sports facilities and various attractions, all of which have been justified on the basis of attracting visitors, yet they have been so tardy in making Hawkes Bay more accessible.

The $7 million of ratepayers money poured into the Regional Tourism Organisation Venture Hawke's Bay might have been more usefully employed upgrading the runway.

We are the most inaccessible large population centre in the country, and the largest urban centre in the country not to have any sort of jet services.

We have allowed a barrier to be created that simply dissuades people from coming here, is a disincentive to new businesses being established, and allows monopoly pricing and services. We would not accept such an arrangement in telecommunications, energy, or for most other products and services, so why are we so apathetic when it comes to air services?

While the new runway will be inadequate it is better than nothing but on the basis of $5.5 million to build 450 metres another $1.8 million would build a 1900 metre runway.

Significantly this far less than the amount the board have always claimed.

Extending the runway is a one off cost. The worst that could happen is air services do not improve.

Compare this with the millions lost annually by other council operations such as the museum, Aquarium, Splash Planet, and the Opera House. Splash Planet alone has cost ratepayers $10 million in accumulated losses.

Higher patronage would help all these ventures and getting more visitors here will go along way towards increasing numbers.

A 1900 metre runway would allow both B737 and A320 aircraft to operate both domestically and to Australian East Coast capitals without restricting passengers. Airport profitability and cash reserves, mean the work can be done at no cost to ratepayers.

To most people it's a no brainer.

Elections Issues

2010-06-17T18:50:00.000-07:00

The Mayors of Napier and Hastings have both signaled their intention to stand for fourth terms in this years local Government elections. Hardly a surprise since neither could earn near as much as they now do, doing anything else.

Its a winner takes all proposition. For the incumbents loosing means loosing everything. The $100 000 salary, the council supplied motor vehicle, expense accounts, and prestige.

The Mayor of Hastings appears especially concerned. He has already publicly identified me as a serious challenger, perhaps with some justification as 3 years ago I came within 4000 votes of winning, when totally unknown, and campaigning on a single issue.

I am now better known and recent favorable media publicity over the airport issue has been helpful.

It seems he has engaged the services of a Wellington Based polling company who are asking whether respondents think the Mayor is doing a good job, who did they vote for last time, plus what do they think are the major issues. Surely questions the Mayor should have been asking a long time ago but instead he has chosen to ignore opinion that was not aligned with his own.

My guess is the Regional Sports Park could become his achillies heel, as he ignored the protests of significant sections of the community, firstly over the sale of Nelson Park, then dismissed criticism over the location of the new facility.

Funding for the Sports Park appears to be in disarray. Donors are not queuing up to provide support and the council is hiding the extent of the shortfall. Kelt Capital were paid around $300 000 in the first year with little or no return. A new fund raiser has now been appointed. At a guess some half a million dollars has already been paid out, just trying to get money in.

It seems the $17.5 million realised from the sale of Nelson Park is all spent. The circus involving Higgins Construction being given $1.9 million of council roading contracts in return for a half million dollar donation towards the park, is not a good look.

While Unison and the Regional Council have chipped in $3.5 million towards the Vellodrome it must be remembered these are publicly owned institutions so those funds are not exactly donations but more like compulsory charges.

The only real voluntary contribution is the very generous donation from Hastings Pak and Save.

The Mayor of Hastings would like us to forget these difficulties and has decided to make the amalgamation of Napier and Hastings his primary election issue. Chances are it is not paramount in the minds of Hastings electors.

Unfortunately the Mayor of Hastings is not also the Mayor of Napier as well because the present Mayor of Napier seems to have a quite different view of amalgamation stating in the past week that she sees no benefit for Napier, in joining forces. My observation is she is supported my the majority of residents of Art Deco city.

So does the Mayor of Hastings know something none of the rest of us know? Is he in secret talks to have Government force an amalgamation against the will of one of the two parties, as effectively it has done in Auckland? Or is he hoping to include Wairoa and Central Hawke's Bay so the no vote from Napier can be overwhelmed.

Clearly he has ambitions to be the new Mayor of Hawke's Bay Super City. This however is unlikely to ever happen, not because there will be no amalgamation but because he is unlikely to gain the support of Napier voters who believe Hastings is a cot case with out of control debt levels.

Last election he captured 11 000 votes, about 55% of the Hastings total while the Mayor of Napier gained over 15 000 votes or 80% of the vote. If they were competing head on for the same job it is clear the Mayor of Napier has a head start of 4000 votes and would likely win.

Its a year since the Hastings Mayor first nominated amalgamation as the big issue so it seems strange there has been no proposal to have a referendum included in the up coming elections. Or does it simply acknowledge that the result will be similar to 10 years ago when the idea was soundly rejected by the people of Napier. In any case referendum allowing people to vote on the issue would take it completely out of the arena for this years elections.

Clearly having two cities plus a Regional Council is wasteful. Three chief executives, duplicated heads of departments, two Mayors and a Chairman plus a couple of dozen surplus councillors suggest there are significant savings on offer.

There are other opportunities for savings by combining various activities. I have previously identified Emergency Management as one such area. Another glaring opportunity is IT or information technology. All three councils operate their own computer systems with significant hardware costs and many support staff. All three have recently updated their systems at huge costs to ratepayers yet all three have systems that are apparently totally incompatible.

If the Mayor of Hastings wishes to reduce the cost of local government why has he not pushed harder to amalgamate at least some of the most wasteful services.

Its not too late for the issue to be put on the Ballot paper. Doing so might destroy the Mayors campaign plans but it would give the rest of us a clearer picture of where we stand.

2010-06-03T18:05:00.000-07:00

Some months ago I commented on Venture Hawke's Bay.

This is the organisation that started out as Hawke's Bay Inc.

It was set up about 5 years ago when the Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, and Hawke's Bay Regional Council all agreed to provide a further $200 000 each a year on top of the $200 000 each then being used to help develop our visitor industry.

The purpose of Hawke's Bay Inc is “to foster regional economic development”

It took nearly a year to find a chief executive who lasted less than a year.

After a significant delay, a second chief was appointed. He too departed right on 12 months.

The third chief Janet Takarangi, formally of trade and Enterprise then got the job. She has now departed as well but this time it has been announced no replacement would be appointed.
During her time in charge the organisation changed it's name from Hawke's Bay Inc to Venture Hawke's Bay and at the same time governance and responsibility for providing funding was taken over by the Regional Council.

Incidentally if you look at your regional council rates demand you can see exactly how much you are paying through the targeted rate.

In spite of the changes the organisation seems unable to function as might be hoped.

For the current year spending is at least $200 000 over budget.

A TV campaign that ran in October also attracted much criticism as did a new web site.

Now I am no expert on Venture Hawke's Bay but I have had some concerns from the outset. As a board member of Hawke's Bay Wine Country Tourism, a voluntary organisation set up to represent businesses involved in the visitor industry I have a little bit of experience in dealing with Venture Hawke's Bay.

I always had reservations with the people involved. To me they have had neither the experience or qualifications necessary to advance our position.

Somehow local political involvement always seems a problem. Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule clearly perceived a growing crises some months ago and resigned before the proverbial, hit the fan. Involving ratepayers has cost Hastings District Council at least $2 million.

It's now clear that in spite of some $7 million in total being spent, there is not a lot to show for it.

Three chief executives seems rather excessive. As each departed continuity has been lost so each new chief has had to start afresh.

Last time I expressed the opinion former Chairman Ross Bramwell was at least partly responsible but clearly he is not alone as over 12 months has now elapsed since his departure. The problems are apparently much deeper.

There is a need for a concerted effort to lift Hawke's Bay out of the mire, but before we even try to make a start we need to understand and accept our local economy performs near the bottom of all regions.

People are leaving the area faster than replacements are arriving meaning population growth is less than the rate of natural replacement, that is births over deaths.

Our population growth is only one third that of Auckland of Auckland and half of New Zealand overall.

We have high unemployment, low incomes, and poor health.

Our visitors numbers are less than 2 years ago.

Businesses leaving and not being replaced. Finding new businesses, new employees, and new opportunities is long term stuff.

Our economy is dependent on primary industries such as animals, forestry, apples and grapes and this is unlikely to change at least in the short term. While these are solid industries they are unlikely to give us the boost we need.

We must do very much better. Because if we do nothing things will just get worse. The problem is those in charge seem to have little relevant experience.

So how can we possibly move ahead when our political leaders only claim to fame is they have been political leaders. A former car dealer, school librarian, and a farmer are reasonable occupation but do not provide relevant backgrounds when it comes to driving the economy forward.

To my way of thinking they are far too comfortable, too well paid, and are over rated.

We have leaders with agenda's that have more to do with their own embellishment than bettering things for Hawke's Bay overall. Leaders also unwilling to stick their neck out and demand better things from government, but willing to waste huge amounts on projects that satisfy their egos while loading the community with millions of dollars of on going long term costs.

The problem of debt

2010-06-02T16:08:00.000-07:00

Over the past few months there has been a growing awareness of the problems caused by debt . Greece was near the point where lenders considered the country could not pay the interest, let alone repay the capital on its huge borrowings.

Government borrowings exceed the total annual output of the economy. Earnings especially from tourism have been hit especially hard.

The size of the debt problem has necessitated a massive trillion dollar bailout by other more financial European countries, plus the IMF.

Greece is not the only problem in Europe. Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland are also on credit watch.

The problem is simply, too much borrowing.
Debt is always a burden though normally manageable. Interest must be paid to the lender and eventually the amount borrowed must also be paid back. If there was no debt there would be no mortgagee sales, no bankruptcies, no sovereign debt issues.
With Greece far too much money ended up being wasted on social agenda's. So instead of adding to their productive capacity it simply propped up unsustainable programmes that might have made people feel good in the short term, but did nothing to grow the economy in the longer term.

Companies also get into trouble borrowing too much. Feltex was a classic example of getting it wrong and they went broke because the housing market slowed down in Australia and carpet sales slumped.

Closer to home the Hastings District Council is engaged in a spending binge. It started innocently enough with $6.2 million borrowed to build Splash Planet. This amenity was supposed to be self funding but patrons have failed to reach more than about half the numbers forecast, so losses totalling about $10 million have resulted.

The only way to make up the deficit is for the council to find the money. For council read ratepayers.
If that money had not been lost council would have been $10 million better off and that might have been available for other uses such as to fixing up the footpaths . Or it could have been left in ratepayers pockets.

Four years ago about the time when council debt started taking off some $15 million was spent upgrading the Opera House. While there were some generous contributions from local business ratepayers still contributed close to 10 million dollars.

Operating losses already amount to a further 3 to 4 million dollars.

Now the Hastings District Council is developing the new Sports park in Percival road. The cost seems likely to be $60 – 70 million. Though Nelson Park yielded $17 million after the site was cleared it seems clear work to date has exceeded this so ratepayers are already funding the shortfall.

While there have been some generous contributions from Unison and the Regional Council towards the proposed Vellodrome more than $10 million is still needed.

As Council debt has grown in the same period it is clear the Sports Park is contributing to the problem.

For the record Hastings District Council debt is forecast to grow to over $100 million up from $37 million in 2006. That's nearly triple the Debt in just 4 years and more than total annual council income from rates and fees.

The chances Sports Park will be self funding are near zero.

We are not yet a cot case like Greece though we are on a greasy slope. Its so easy for politicians to justify borrowing to fund pet projects, and so difficult to find the means to repay it when the time comes. Inevitably it is the little people who end up paying for the extravagances.

RSE workers

2010-05-18T16:32:00.000-07:00

During late summer and early Autumn Hawke's Bay has an influx of people from Pacific Island nations such as Vanuatu and Samoa who come here to work on our Orchards during the fruit picking season. They are known as RSE workers. RSE stands for Recognised Seasonal Employer.

The scheme was introduced about three years ago as a result of growers having major problems getting the labor needed to get their crops off the trees, during the short window for optimum quality for each variety.

The money they earn helps them to provide better lives for their families back home, where it might well take a year to earn the same as a months wages here. But the benefits are far from one sided.

The contribution these people are making to the Hawke's Bay economy is huge. In the years before the scheme was set up growers might be limited to two picks, then have to abandon perfectly good fruit on the trees because later maturing varieties were ready to pick. Not any more. Every salable last apple can be harvested.

Since the bulk of on orchard costs such as pruning, spraying and rates have already been paid for, the economics of growing apples improves significantly.

The extra output then creates more work for packhouses, transport shipping companies and anyone else involved in the horticultural industry.

Orchardists love them because they are here to work. They aim to take as much money home as they can so there is no unexpected absenteeism following pay day, no turning up late, just committed enthusiastic workers. Some are now returning for their 3rd season creating a growing pool of experienced workers.

Increasingly they are put up in permanent facilities such as budget motels where they are warm and dry, and where meals can be properly organised.

They pay around a $100 a week for accommodation. This income has made a huge difference to many accommodation providers at a time when our visitor industry is not doing all that well. Those providing this accommodation also describe them as top people, law abiding, polite, and a pleasure to have.

Paying for accommodation is just the start. In addition to the food they consume while living here they buy clothing, shoes and a whole range of other products to take back with them. One item that has proved very popular this season is solar cell power systems.

Each worker must be injecting a minimum of $200 a week into the Hawke's Bay economy, a total equal to at least half a million and perhaps as much as one million dollars a week, for 3 to 4 months. This has to be at least a partial explanation retail turnover statistics especially for Hastings have remained strong over the recession.

The gains don't stop with their work and the money they contribute. This money ends up with the families of these workers, without the ticket clipping deductions by officials and bureaucrats that is common with direct Government to Government aid. Help ends up where it is needed.

It is clearly a win - win – win situation. It can't get much better than that.

GST

2010-05-03T16:17:00.000-07:00

Though not yet officially announced, this months budget looks likely to include an increase in GST from 12.5 to 15.0%.

It is clear we are being softened up with promises direct rates of income tax will be reduced at the same time.

Personally I feel cynical when I hear these arguments.

The same line was used in 1986 when 10% GST introduced and perhaps there was some truth in the promise because back then the maximum marginal rate introduced by Rob Muldoon was 66%. Lets hope we never get back to such incentive destroying levels, though I think Helen Clarke would have liked to have done so.

We also had to contend with sales taxes which were often around 20% for things like automotive parts and certain appliances. GST certainly removed many anomalies that existed at time. For instance the same item used for automotive uses was taxed but the same item used for something else was not.

The problem is new taxes are simply ratcheted up when ever there is a problem. Within 2 years new Finance Minister David Caygill solved his problems by increasing GST from 10% to 12.5%

In 1999 when Helen Clarke became Prime Minister the maximum marginal rate of personal tax was hiked up to 39%. No balancing reduction in GST of course. It was claimed only a small number of high earners would be affected. Nine years later a substantial number of workers found them selves on the maximum rate.

Now we are being spun the same old argument supporting a rise in GST so direct taxes can be lowered so there is an incentive for people to work, so there is less incentive for tax avoidance and so on.

One new element this time is the argument we need to be competitive with Australia who we are told might reduce direct taxes to 30% the same rate as company taxes. Australia has a maximum marginal rate of nearly 50%, plus capital gains tax so the fears seem unfounded. seems to have been forgotten. We are almost certainly loosing people to out neighbors cause of incomes, and lifestyle not taxes.

Of course the obvious question is: What is to stop some future Clarke/ Cullen type government increasing tax rates to 40% or more again? The only way to stop this happening is for a multi party commitment and that is highly unlikely.

Another argument wheeled out is how much lower our GST is than say Europe where it is around 20% .The Comparisons are always selective of course. In the USA there is no GST, just state sales taxes which are typically around 5% the mark.

In Australia GST is only 10% with exemptions for quite a few items such as non processed foods, medical expenses like doctors visits and the like. If Government is truly concerned about comparisons perhaps we should just match their GST rate.

The PM promises no one will be worse off.
Irrespective of his intentions I think there will be plenty of people who are worst off. Number one on my list is superannuates. National super is based on average wages (currently 66 percent of the net average wage) not costs so even if there is some sort of boost to super this will likely not be permanent unless super levels are set at a higher fraction of wages.

One of the most onerous effects will be the effect on peoples savings. If you have managed to put aside some reserves for major purchases unexpected expenses or retirement then on the day GST is increased the purchasing power of those savings will reduce by 2.5%.

Imagine a young family saving for a brand new house. On the day GST increases a $400 000 house suddenly jumps in price by $10 000. If they have managed to save $100 000 for their deposit then those saving will suddenly decrease in purchasing power by $2500.

It is almost a form of legalised theft.

Only way to ensure no one worse off will be a 2.5% government top up of all private savings. Let see if Prime Minister John Key believes his own rhetoric and makes sure no one is worse off by finding the money to do so.

Government Spending

2010-04-25T16:35:00.000-07:00

The allocation of most Government services such as police, hospitals and social welfare is based on population tweaked a little to reflect specific regional differences.

However there are some areas of Government spending where the playing field seems far from level, and where Hawke's Bay seems to miss out rather badly.

The first of these is Government funded institutions.

For instance there are universities in Auckland, Hamilton, Palmerston North, ( Palmerston North also has a teachers training college ) Wellington, Christchurch ( where there are two universities ) and Dunedin. These are hugely beneficial to local economies through the employment of many well paid staff, as well as through general spending.

Local economies are also boosted by student spending, especially those students attracted from other parts of the country or from overseas.

Where there is a university the population is likely to be better educated giving these areas a competitive advantage when trying to attract new businesses. Undoubtedly lack of a university is one reason why we rank poorly for the number of people with tertiary qualifications.

We are the largest major centre in the country without a university. Many of Hawke's Bay's young people must travel outside the area to obtain skills and training. This is a huge drain on theirs, and their families finances, and extracts vital spending out of our own economy.

Military bases are another important boost to some areas, but not Hawke's Bay. Palmerston North is clearly a winner with two. An air base at Ohakea, and a major Army Base at Linton. Auckland also gains with an air force base at Whenuapai, plus the Navel facility at Devonport.

Of course the big winner from Government spending has to be Wellington as the capital city, where not surprisingly incomes are the highest in the country.

Some areas also seem to get a very generous share of Governments spending on one off projects. Te Papa museum in Wellington was built entirely with Government money and a major part of its annual running cost is also met by Government.

Helen Clark generously promised some 190 million dollars to upgrade Eden Part for the Rugby World Cup when she was Prime Minister. An upgrade that will provide huge long term advantages over other parts of the country when competing for major events in the future.

The present Government has thrown in another $20 million for a half share contribution to purchase Queens Wharf in Auckland to provide a giant party centre for the rugby world cup with more on promise.

Infrastructure spending by Government is also significant. Hardly a week goes by without an official announcement of some major new public works somewhere in the country.
Wellington looks likely to get a billion dollars to build a new motorway through transmission Gully to the north of the city, one of the seven roads of national significance to be given funding priority.

The new Victoria Park Viaduct & Tunnel Project in Auckland is expected to cost over $400m and there are several other huge roading projects proposed for our largest city.

Only a few years ago Tauranga was given a 250 million dollar harbour bridge as part of the deal to gain Winston Peters support for the minority Labor administration.

Commuter rail systems in our two major cities are also being upgraded at tax payers expense. Double tracking of the line north of Wellington and extending the electrification to Wakanae will cost $90 million.

These are all important projects which could not proceed without Government funding but Hawke's Bay seems to be missing out.

With 150 000 people Hawke's Bay is about 1/10th the size of Auckland. On a per capita basis we might expect to get about 1/10th as much as Auckland and perhaps a quarter to a third as much as Wellington. It doesn't seem to happen though.

For instance the $190 million spent on Eden Park equates to $19 million for McLean Park. Well as I recall we got just $2.1 million.

So who is responsible for this sad state of affairs?

Well I blame the politicians starting with our local Mayors and Councils. Compared to the endless string of demands coming out of Auckland we seem to insist on nothing.

For instance our two Mayors let the Crown refuse to contribute to the airport upgrade , when there was a legally binding agreement that specified Government was to pay half of any development costs.

Of course both our Mayors seem to have developed separate but parallel career paths in Wellington so perhaps their willingness to compromise Hawke's Bay's interests are understandable.

I think we also have a problem with our Parliamentary representatives. In spite of having up to five MP's including two cabinet ministers living locally until recently we seemed to have no effective voice.

Unless we start getting a better share of meaningful Government spending we can expect our local economy to continue performing poorly.

Population Growth

2010-04-10T15:50:00.000-07:00

Recently released new population projections forecast the number of people in Hawke's Bay will increase by a maximum of 0.2% a year, until 2026 when numbers are expected to start falling. There are only 3 other areas where a decline is forecast.

Some people may think this is good news, after all the planet can only support so many of us. We are using up the worlds renewable, and finite resources at an alarming rate.

Water is under huge pressure and tap water is now obtained from purified sewerage in some places like the UK and parts of Australia. Some fish stocks have been cleaned out and may never recover. Oil production has also plateaued and will likely start declining within the next decade.

So there is a conflict between sustainability and economic survival, however we need a touch of realism.

Hawke's Bay could sink beneath the Pacific Ocean and it would not make a dot of difference to world sustainability. Unless the world at large is willing to grapple with the issue huge economic damage will be done by moving out of sync with the rest of the world.

By 2027 Hawke's Bay is forecast to have another 3000 people. This compares with another 600 000 people for the country overall so we will shrink compared to the rest of the country.

While these numbers are at odds with the 8200 increase expected by 2045, according to the Heretaunga Plains urban development strategy proposed by the Regional Council, both sources are effectively projecting low growth.

The problem with a low growth is two fold. As our share of the nations population diminishes our claim to resources will decline accordingly. Already we seem to miss out on Government spend ups. We have no university, so our young are forced elsewhere. Some of our hospital services are already sourced from Palmerston North and as specialisation intensifies more services could be relocated.

The second problem is population growth is a major driver of economic growth. As more people settle here the economy is stimulated by boosting demand for housing, and infrastructure, such as roads, water, sewerage, airports and so on.

To the people that matter we are recognised as the 5th largest urban area in the country. But by next census we may have slipped to 7th place behind Tauranga and Dunedin, and then suddenly we may find we are just not as important as we used to be.

Nothing will drive people away from an area faster than a lack of jobs, and if more people start leaving more jobs will be lost. Already people are leaving Hawke's Bay in droves and although births are helping off set these losses the net result is low growth.

Population stagnation will mean economic stagnation.

In the city of Detroit in the USA, once the center of American automobile manufacturing industries started leaving, so more businesses packed up. Then even more people lost their livelihood. Within about 40 years the population halved. Suburbs are derelict and abandoned. The city is broke, crime is rampant, and people are still leaving.

If we want a half decent future we must not allow this to happen to Hawke's Bay.

So how fast should we grow? That of course is the key question and I do not know the answer, but I firmly believe 0.2% is way too low.

Sports Park

2010-04-07T14:26:00.000-07:00

The recent disclosure that a $500 000 donation by Higgins Contracting towards the Regional Sports Park was conditional on the company being awarded $1.8 million in work, raises serious issues about the way council matters are being handled.

The announcement of the so called gift was made with great fan fair a week earlier by the Sports Park Chairman who happens to also be the Mayor. It is no secret the park has struggled to get sponsorship due to the economic downturn that started to bite way back in 2007 and it seemed like the first positive step in breaking the funding drought.

In the early days of the park development, local entrepreneur Sam Kelt was in charge of the fund raising and was being paid $300 000 a year for his troubles. Almost certainly nothing was raised though strenuous efforts were made to conceal the details. At the time we all believed he would be donating one million dollars towards the development. It is still not entirely clear if any money has, or ever will be received under this arrangement. Certainly the chances seemed to shrink after some sort of disagreement between the Mayor and Mr Kelt.

It's impossible to find out exactly what is going on at the Sports Park because many decisions have been made behind closed doors, and much of what has been said has been subject to serious spin doctoring, necessary only when the truth is unpalatable.

As I recall the contracts for construction of the all weather athletics track and parts of the Grandstand were also awarded to Higgins without any formal tender process.

Again the Mayor claimed these were very good deals. Perhaps!! But the reality is the only way to know for sure that something is a very good deal is for all interested parties to submit their best prices. Other than “for free” anything else costs ratepayers.

Now while nod nod, wink wink hand shake deals might be convenient there is no place for them when public money is involved. Remember we are talking about millions of dollars.

There are several things seriously wrong with the latest sports park deal. The fact that substantial contracts were let without being subject to competitive tender breaks the councils own rules. Shifting control to a 100% council owned trust is simply manipulating the situation to avoiding the rules that normally apply. For instance the price for work could have been jacked up to cover the cost of the donation. The next step on such a path is graft.

The process has also disadvantaged other contractors . They employ people, pay rates and contribute to our society. The risk is over time others may become cynical and not bother to submit their best deals in future because they know its a waste of time. It may even force some not to stay in business or not to stay in Hawke's Bay.

The fact it was necessary to exclude any public scrutiny makes clear the deal was not squeaky clean. The whole sordid business was opposed by only a handful of councillors who realised the full implications of favoritism when handing out valuable work. Full marks to those who did stand up and be counted but clearly nepotism is not dead at the Hastings District Council.

When I read of the Mayor claiming he had done no wrong, ringing in my ears was US President Richard Nixon proclaiming “I'm not a crook” just before he was impeached by congress over the Watergate scandal.

Its now time to ask other questions about the sports park. Much has been said about the $3.5 million pledged for the Velodrome by Unison and the Regional Council. On the surface quite generous but this money is in effect all public money that has been taken from the community. A lot more is still needed and it seems significant contributions will be required from Government and/or Bike New Zealand.

In addition to providing a valuable facility for aspiring Olympians such a facility could boost our visitor industry but we cannot count on it happening.

We are not the only ones pitching for official endorsement. Palmerston North, Wanganui and Auckland are all aspiring to have the first all weather north Island velodrome. So if we don't win this battle for funding do we lose the $3.5 million already pledged or can it be used for other Sports Park projects?

It is time for the Mayor to stop fudging the facts and reveal the exact state of affairs.

Beach errosion

2010-03-19T15:39:00.000-07:00

Last Sunday night coastal areas were hit with monster waves generated by a low pressure system hundreds of kilometers off shore. Te Awanga, Haumoana and Clifton, all part of the Hastings District were the most affected.

The Hawke's Bay coastline is built from shingle bought down by the various rivers and distributed along the foreshore by tides and waves. Every so often large swells arrive and this process is accelerated so what might seem like stable ground suddenly starts moving, sometimes being eroded, and some times being built up.

The problem is decades ago houses were built on the foreshore when the sea seemed not be be a problem, and now many are right on the edge of the beach having lost most of their frontage to previous storms.

Several batches and sheds have already been destroyed, and the process can expect to continue forever, unless or course we have another 1931 type tectonic event when perhaps the land might be lifted higher instead of dropping lower as happened last time.

Anyway people with houses in the area do what most of us would do in similar circumstances. They try to make their houses safe mostly by building protective walls.

In doing so they have come up against the policies of the Hastings District Council and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council both of whom seem to favor what is rather delightfully called a managed retreat, meaning abandoning their properties.

The Dutch might be interested in this ohilosophy.

Of course it's very easy to support such an idea when it is not your house being threatened.

The residents not unsurprisingly disagree.They want to build protective barriers. The Hastings District has ruled these structures require resource consents before work can even start. One local who had rebuilt a wall originally built by a previous owner, was recently taken to court and fined.

The locals also believe the solution is a series of groynes along the coastline. Of course ratepayers might no be so keep on paying for what some think is a battle that cannot be won. Some in the wider community believe those who choose to live by the sea cannot expect the wider community to pay for their protection.

The councils seem to agree yet this approach seems inconsistent with their decisions on other similar matters.

For over seventy years the Heretaunga plains have been protected by stockbanks or levees built during in the 1930's during the depression and unquestionably valuable farm and cropping land has been saved from inundation from foods, especially during Cyclone Bola in the late 1980,s when the water was within centimeters of coming over the top. In 1989 responsibility transferred to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

Another valuable asset protected with man made fortifications is the Port of Napier. Few if any would contest the value of the port to this area, but the massive concrete blocks, boulders and other engineering works are there to prevent the sea disrupting activities. As it happens the port is owned by the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

Thirty years ago Westshore was a very pleasant beach. Not any more. Some claim port development has caused the erosion. The Regional Council seems to have accepted some responsibility and over recent years huge quantities of shingle have been trucked at great expense from Marine Parade to Westshore to replace material eroded from the beach.

Elsewhere retaining walls and other barriers to the elements are normal practice for protecting roads, airports, and just about anything else we consider valuable.

In just a few hours last Sunday night the the road to Clifton recently built to replace an earlier road was all but washed away again. How much did the new road cost, who paid, and what happened to the managed retreat policy?

One point that has become apparent from the latest assault, is that if the group of 21 houses at Haumoana disappear into the sea, the road to Te Awanga will be threatened. Protection might be cheaper than building a replacement for the several hundred homes that will be cut off, as a new road could involve the purchase of some rather pricey land financed by ratepayers.

As long as the residents are fighting the battle with their own money they may be doing the wider community a great service. It seems quite unreasonable to load individual citizens with monstrous consent costs when all they are trying to do is protect their houses with fortification built on their own land at their own expense.

For the moment council officers seem to be enforcing their entrenched views by placing every possible obstruction in the way of these people.

Local Government Emergency

2010-03-11T14:33:00.000-08:00

Recently Regional Councillors Neil Kirton and Tim Gilbertson called for greater co operation between our five councils. This followed a Chamber of Commerce letter suggestion a referendum on amalgamation be held in conjunction with this years local Government elections. Something I have also been suggesting.
Apparently talks on greater co operation have been going on for 10 years or more but little progress has been made.
Just two days after the report an event occurred which to me highlighted the disjointed relationships between our local councils. I am talking of course about the Tsunami scare following a massive 8.8 earthquake off the coast of Chile.
A major natural disaster is always on the cards for Hawke's Bay. A couple of thousand years ago ( geologically only yesterday) a massive eruption where Lake Taupo now is, smothered Hawke's Bay with ash. It is at least the 4th time this has happened and it will likely happen again.
Seventy nine years ago we were hit by a major earthquake that all but destroyed both Napier and Hastings. It could and probably will happen again.
In the 1960's our coastline was battered by a Tsunami that originated of the coast of South America where the latest one started. There was some damage, no lives were lost, but it shows these events are not isolated.
I have had some encounters with Tsunami. In 1975 while working in the Solomon Islands I flew over an area not long after a massive Tsunami had hit the coast, traveling hundreds of meters inland and killing thousands of villagers. From the air it was just a dirty brown scar reaching from the sea but clearly on the ground it was total disaster.
One night a little later in Rabaul on the island of New Britain there was a large earthquake in the middle of the night. Next morning I was shown a serious of photographs on display in the foyer showing the result of a previous earthquake. A wall of water travelled across the harbour hitting the sea wall maybe 100 metres from the motel then continued across the grass and road until it hit the outer wall of the building where I had been sleeping. After smashing through the ground floor units it continued out the other side of the rooms perhaps a metre and a half deep. One astonishing shot showed a wall of brown water pouring into the swimming pool at one end while at the other end it was still calm and blue.
Of course these are just tiddlers. When the Indonesian volcano of Krakatoa exploded in the 1880's, a wall of water was so high it swept away people who had climbed a hill over 30 metres high for protection.
So what has all of this got to do with Hawke's Bay. Throughout the day of the Tsunami I received a constant bombardment of media releases updating me on the tsunami.
At least six bulletins came from the Regional Council, four from the Napier City Council and I assume more were put out by the Hastings District Council.
Three organisations were working to minimise the threat to the people of Hawke's Bay. In the field there seemed to be inconsistency. In Napier the market on Marine parade was in full swing, where as Haumoana and Te Awanga were both evacuated and Waimarama self evacuated. In Clive I heard a woman asking the Police why her area had not been evacuated. The police seemed to be operating under different instructions again.
I am not criticising those in the field. They were doing what seemed right, but it seemed to me the three organisations were unaware of each others actions. It was after all a single threat to the whole area.
Natural disasters are real threats to our safety. It is only a matter of time before the big one, what ever it is, hits Hawke's Bay. Parts of Napier including the airport are only a couple of meters above high tide. A three meter Tsunami on top of a king tide could well reach into the suburbs threatening lives.
We need one controlling civil defence authority possibly working under the control of full time emergency agencies of Fire, Ambulance, and Police. Fire in particular are probably the only organisation with the necessary skills and equipment to handle a major disaster.
Not only would there be a better co-ordinated response, presumably there would also be financial savings for ratepayers.
We should consider the Tsunami a dry run for the real thing. When the real thing does happen we must be prepared in the best way possible.
So if our councilors have any real intention of working in unison then a single emergency management organisation would be a good place to start.

Public Transport

2010-03-04T14:27:00.000-08:00

Last year the Hawkes Bay Regional Council awarded the urban Bus contract to “Go Bus”, dropping long time provider Nimons who had been running services for close to a hundred years.

While urban bus services are not profitable as stand alone operations, they are made attractive to operators with ratepayer subsidies. These subsidies remove much of the risk faced other by other providers such as taxi's. The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is you. Take a look at your Regional Council Rates demand and you will find exactly what you are being charged whether or not, you are a bus user. Additionally Government provides some financial support.

A hundred years or so, few people owned their own transport.

For most mobility was greatly enhanced with the arrival of the railways from the 1880's, followed by electric trams after 1900.

Yes, the first cars were becoming available around the same time, but it was not until the 1950's and 1960's that growing incomes made then affordable to most people.

Private cars offered unrestrained travel and freedom of where to go, and when, and where to live and work.

They also filled the streets with traffic and parked cars.

Eventually the authorities realised the futility of building more and more new roads, bridges, motorways and parking buildings and started to encourage people to use public transport.

Some major cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, and others could not function without mass transport systems. Of course public transport existed well before the arrival of private cars so the travelling and living patterns of the inhabitants developed around the transport system not the other way around.

Wellington is the only city in this country with an effective urban rail system. There, about a quarter of commuters use public transport, compared with just four percent of people traveling into Auckland's CBD, and only one percent in Christchurch. It probably helps that a large number of public servants with their nine to five work ethic, and down town work places provides the numbers and concentration of traffic needed.

To some extent it was just luck that the rail tracks built in the 1880's were still there in the 1940's when the system was electrified. Significantly there has been little improvement in 70 years.

Public transport is clearly loosing out to the private motor vehicle everywhere in New Zealand including Hawke's Bay. This in spite of massive subsidies for public transport funded from taxes, rates, and private motorists.

In Hawke's Bay we have little history of using public transport. Low density urban expansion and widely spread employment generally prevents the concentrations of passengers needed for an effective public transport system.

Schools, the EIT and the hospital do provide the necessary hubs to concentrate traffic so these are the exceptions.

So in spite of the hype pumped out by the Regional Council the reality is urban bus services in Hawke's Bay are failing to attract good passenger loadings and this is supported by general observation of empty and near empty buses.

For the second quarter of 2009 total bus patronage was 110 000 passengers. Fully 85% were travelling free or on some sort of concession and over half were children or students.

Only 15%, or 16 500 trips were full fare paying adults. Sounds a lot but divided over the 65 work days this averages 254 trips a day. Now allowing for each person traveling both from home, then back, this represents only 127 people a day, an absolute minuscule fraction of the over 50 000 people estimated to work in Hawkes Bay each day.

Even this over states bus usage, because not all of these trips are traveling to work, and some must be using weekend services.

So the many are paying for just a few to have an almost personal transport service.

While buses to Flaxmere, the hospital and the EIT do appear quite well supported, by far the majority of services are not.

Remember these buses are costing you the ratepayer over a million dollars a year so ratepayers have a right to question the purpose of the service, how the routes and frequency are decided, and how much it should cost.

The reasoning behind urban transport lacks rationale. My guess is the last Government imposed it on the Regional Council who are more than happy to expand their empire.

Pressure from just a a few individuals may have convinced council that the community is demanding such a service but few of these people ever seem to catch the bus themselves.

While on the surface subsidised urban transport seems like a good idea because in theory it removes vehicles from the roads in reality it can be wasteful because it encourages people to live further from their work place than they might otherwise do, shifting the cost of getting to work onto others.

Only by imposing onerous penalties for car drivers such as tolls, congestion, and parking charges plus massive subsidies can people be shifted out of their cars. Hardly surprising considering the inconvenience and unhealthy atmosphere experienced with public transport.

Those who drive to work face the full cost. There is also the issue of fairness. Clive gets a service. Haumoana, and Te Awanga do not, nor do Waipukarau, Waipawa or Wairoa.

Now I believe we do need buses, but we need to drop the myth we are getting cars off the road. In Hawke's Bay buses are mainly a social service for those who don't have access to private motor vehicles.

Rational thinking must prevail. Subsidies promote waste.

If particular services are not supported by a reasonable numbers of people, then they should be discontinued. The Regional Council does not have a mandate to waste ratepayers money in pursuit of unrealistic sustainability aims.

Venture Hawke's Bay

2010-02-11T17:52:00.000-08:00

Over past couple of months there have been accusations, and counter claims concerning the performance of an organisation called Venture Hawkes Bay.

This organisation started out as Hawke's Bay Inc and from the outset has attracted continuing low level criticism.

The name may have changed but the dissatisfaction remains. VHB was established to foster economic development in Hawkes Bay and ratepayers and citizens are paying the bill so need to be aware of what is going on. Initial funding was about $1.5 million a year was split equally between the Regional Council, Hastings District, and Napier City Councils.

At some point both Hastings and Napier disengaged, so from 2009 both control and funding have been managed by the Regional Council. Look at your Regional Council rates assessment and you will find a targeted amount for Venture Hawke's Bay.

The cost has increased as with all Regional Council projects and now seems closer to $4 million a year, with some of that financed from Government grants. Staff establishment has exploded to 17 employees.

Most of the criticism involves Venture Hawke's Bay's tourism activities. Of course this is the most visible of their responsibilities and there are many businesses and people are directly involved in the visitor industry.

I have been one of the critics almost since the beginning. In my opinion most of the problems are due to the unsuitability of the people running the organisation.

Ross Bramwell founding Chairman of the Regional Council was the first Chairman. In my opinion he given the job simply as a sort of gratuity. Ross is a pleasant fellow but I certainly don't think he's got the necessary skills for the challenge.

As proof he failed at least twice to find a suitable Chief Executive and hang onto them. It took nearly a year to find the first incumbent who resigned and departed within 10 months following months of rumors about serious dissatisfaction.

The next appointment was Tom Hamilton a former Hawke's Bay man who was working in Singapore. I have met Tom several times over the years and I could never understand why he was selected to lead Hawke's Bay into the future.

He made three tips to New Zealand for interviews, then a briefing then the final shift with his family. The process took months and cost a fortune.

It seemed just weeks had passed when whispers again suggested great dissatisfaction and right on the obligatory 12 months he also departed.

Number three Chief Executive is Janet Takerangi, also a Ross Bramwell appointment made not long before he handed over the chairmanship to Regional Councillor Neil Kirton in 2009.

She has not impressed some people. Mid 2009 she claimed visitor numbers were up but overlooked the figures she was using were seriously distorted by overseas fruit pickers. In that same month Molliner shot several police officers an event that dragged in at least 100 police and army personnel plus a significant number of media people adding perhaps 1000 bed nights to the statistics.

Neil Kirton worked in the Health sector before being swept into Parliament with the New Zealand first avalanche of 1996. As associate Minister of Health and of Customs I personally supported some of his initiatives such as the 100% speedo checks on imported second hand vehicles.

He was in constant strife with Bill English and did not seek re-election in 1999, and would not have been returned anyway.

Two years later he was elected to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and has been re-elected twice.

I question whether his knowledge or background have equipped him to head up an economic development agency, and I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Neil knows much about tourism. He was for years a critic of Hawke's Bay Inc so one wonders if he was silenced with an offer of the chairmanship and the $50 000 a year he is understood to earn as Chairman.

The other major player in the tourism story is Regional Promotion and Marketing Manager Michael Wan who hails from NZ Post. At this stage it is far from clear whether he has the skills to drive the visitor industry.

The most recent criticisms of VHB concern a recent TV advertising campaign, and redesigned internet web site both part of measures intended to attract more visitors.

Many accommodation practitioners suggest the TV campaign has been ineffective and the web site unsatisfactory, and are able to produce antidotal evidence to support their arguments. They also complain of lack of consultation. Accommodation and visitor industry operators collectively spend millions on advertising and marketing so have knowledge of the issues. They also need to know what is going on so they can co ordinate with any official programmes.

The downturn seems to have hit some moteliers hard. A couple of years ago they were doing well so what exactly has changed?

When they complained Neil attacked them suggesting they were offering an unsatisfactory product. This knee jerk reaction appears very defensive. The ultimate measure of success is surely an improvement in the official statistics.

Hawkes Bay Inc and Venture Hawke's Bay have cost ratepayers more than $10 million since inception and there is not a lot to show for the money.

The criticisms and complaints require answers. To succeed people need to perform and this is more likely if they have a proven track record. It seems so far at least, this is not the case. With elections looming it is time for transparency and accountability so we can decide whether to continue to support Venture Hawke's Bay or not.

Upgrade the Airport before its too late

2010-02-02T23:35:00.001-08:00

For over 5 years a group of concerned citizens has been engaged in a battle with the Mayors of Napier and Hastings to get some action on upgrading the local airport so we can have passenger jets come here and perhaps even direct flights to Australia.

This battle has only been necessary because in 2004 the Airport Board accepted a very misleading $30 000 report from a well known firm of public accountants.

To put it bluntly the report was riddled with errors. Clearly the board did not realise how inadequate it was until the issue was exposed in local papers but then both they and the consultants failed to put matters right.

Incredibly neither the Mayors of Napier or Hastings did anything about it either.

Only after years of criticism did the two councils commission a second report in 2007 at a further cost to ratepayers of $60 000. At the same time a third privately funded report costing nearly $40 000 was commissioned.

The findings of both these new reports were so convincing, the Airport Board was instructed to develop plans to financing a runway extension to 1900 metres.

Another three years has been wasted but at long last the Airport Board has announced it is extending the runway to 1750 metres.

This will not give us flights to Australia, though it will allow other airlines such as Pacific Blue and Jet Star to fly domestic services and we badly need competition to break the Air New Zealand monopoly on on air services to Hawke's Bay.

Passenger jets will also allowed increased capacity at times or on special occasions when needed while providing the sort of aircraft that already fly to places such as Hamilton, Rotorua, Dunedin and Queenstown.

OK you say “who cares, doesn't affect me I never fly anyway”. This is a very narrow and selfish view of the situation. The same retarded thinking would have us still using stagecoaches, steam trains, morse code, or dial up internet instead of broadband.

If we are going to survive in today's tough world and compete with other cities for businesses, for conferences, for tourism and other forms of commerce then affordable, convenient air services are essential. Business people need regular contact with customers and suppliers.

The high cost of airfares has been given as the major reason local business people are deterred from travelling outside the area.

We should also continue the fight for direct links to Australia, this countries biggest source of manufactured imports, biggest export market, largest source of overseas investment monies, and biggest recipient of overseas investment by New Zealanders. Our business people need easy access to Australia to help them prosper and provide more employment . Right now they are seriously disadvantaged by having to fly via Auckland or Wellington at double the cost and double the travel time.

Over half of all New Zealanders travelling overseas, are heading to Australia. Many Hawke's Bay people have children, relatives or friends living in Australia who they would like to visit, or have visit.

And even more importantly Australia is the source of over half of all overseas visitors to this country. And that percentage is growing fast. If people in Australia find Hawke's Bay too difficult and expensive to travel to, they simply won't bother to come.

The visitor industry is a major employer. After the 3 main centres we are 7th largest of 29 regions for visitors but our growth rate is near lowest.

We pay through the nose for airfares and suffer from the other monopoly practices employed by Air New Zealand. Actions that should be illegal but somehow never seem to escape the attention of regulatory authorities. Excessive airfares could be robbing our community of at least $10 million a year.

So why has the airport board sat on its hands for so long? Probably because the airport is also a monopoly so there is no pressure for then to act. Its just a comfortable old man's club.

Why have our Mayors and other civic leaders dithered for so long? They seem willing to spend mega dollars trying to get people to come here, but have failed to make it easier for them to do so.

Remember it's not going to cost ratepayers a thing. The airport is profitable, about the only council activity that is, and has at least $5 million in reserves. More can be borrowed if needed.

In reality the extension should not stop at 1750 metres. The 1900 metres needed for direct flights to Australia has been estimated to cost as as little as a million dollars if done at the same time.

That's the order of money the Hastings District Council has to pour into Splash Plant or the Opera House every year.

Venture Hawke's Bay costs ratepayers $3 million dollars a year, and that organisation has a very unsatisfactory record of success.

May be you are one of the few who still don't agree with the runway extension. You are in the minority. The 2007 investigation found 90% support and only 3% opposed. A 30 to one majority of supporters over opponents.

Land Grab Unacceptable

2009-11-06T19:59:00.000-08:00

A recent decision by independent commissioners finding against the Hastings District Council building the Northern Arterial Route linking Havelock North with the Napier Hastings Expressway sends a clear message to the council. Using local government powers to grab land is unacceptable and it that land is owned by Maori it is especially unacceptable.

Two years ago the same council lead by the same mayor proposed using the Public Works Act to take ownership of the road leading to Ocean Beach. Access over the road was never an issue so the action seems unnecessarily provocative, but probably had more to do with the councils involvement in the proposal for major beach subdivision.

New Zealand's short 200 year European history started with minimal impact on Maori when sealer's and whalers setting up camp in the inhospitable deep south. In 1840 organised migrations by the New Zealand Company saw a huge increase in settlers. British officials signed a treaty with Maori stating amongst other things the rights of Maori to retain their lands. Unquestionably it was a genuine effort to preserve their rights whilst establishing conditions suitable for European type settlement. Of course the advantage lay with the settlers because they controlled the process, were accustomed to a formal legal system and had a written language to record the details of the agreement.

Over time the spirit of the agreement was overlooked, ignored or forgotten and some fairly unscrupulous actions were used to wrench ownership of land from tribal owners. Whilst Maori often objected to these actions they were always powerless to stop the process.

By 1975 there was a concerted move for compensations highlighted by a protest hikoi from the far north home to Wellington led by 80 year old Dame Whina Cooper. Ultimately this led to the establishment of a formal treaty settlement process intended to investigate and compensate for the unlawful loss of lands. The cost already is more than $1 billion.

So what has all this to do with the recent actions of the Hastings District Council. Well in the light of history it seems totally inappropriate that the Mayor and Councillors of the Hastings District Council keep trying to repeat the wrong doings of our forebears 150 or more years ago. Do we really want to burden for our descendants with new claims some time in the future?

That $1.8 million has been spent on this project, much in recent years when the issue was already heading to court is astonishing. Better judgement might have seen the writing on the wall before significant funds were committed.

Is bigger better?

2009-09-25T20:21:00.000-07:00

The proposal for a Hawke's Bay super city is not new. In 1999 a referendum revealed significant support by the people of Hastings, and an almost identical level of rejection by those in Napier. Will it be different this time?

Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule has put forward his proposal promising to contest the issue at next years local government elections. This is an interesting approach because it implies political choice, rather than letting the people decide.

Before the people can decide, the benefits must be spelt out in detail. While duplication or triplication of premises and staff suggest tantalizing savings, it may not be possible to realise these? The plan as outlined by Lawrence Yule with two minor Mayors and a super Mayor plus two tiers of attendant Councillors and staff seems to negate the reason for merging in the first place.

He talks of an overall 5% savings. Since annual rate increases are of this order (though often hidden by borrowing) the gains seems rather meager. And if there are savings how might ratepayers benefit? Will ratepayers see a reduction in their costs. As a resident of the Hawke's Bay County Council prior to it being taken over by Hastings in 1989 I recall no rate reductions or improvements in services though some might argue no change is an improvement on what might have happened.

Only a full merger, or a compete take over of one city by the other will achieve any great savings, but to do so means there will be losers because jobs will be lost and in shifting to one location some people will experience significant inconvenience plus additional traveling costs getting to their local council. For instance car parking is already a problem and significant cost in Napier.

Any investigation must look at all options. Significant savings with much less disruption appear possible if Napier and Hastings simply absorbed the Regional Council. Where there is duplication there is opportunity for rationalisation and joint operations as already happens with the landfill and the airport.

And if there are savings how long will it be before they are swallowed up by the relentless mushrooming Local Government staff numbers? Perhaps we should look at a single city with a similar population to our two cities such as Dunedin to see if more, better, or lower cost services are provided.

It will cost millions to investigate and implement. The people should be told what these costs are up front before a cent is spent. Certainly Hastings does have a great record of managing major projects. We have only to look at Splash Planet, the Opera House, and the Sports Park to see how far astray the financial projections might be.

The two council system seems to have at least one advantage. People are able to make comparisons between the two organisations for services, efficiency and value for money.

It is claimed one city will have a stronger voice with Government. As President of Local Government New Zealand the Hastings Mayor is in constant contact with Government and it seems not to have bought any greater voice for the city. Lack of meaningful progress on the airport development is the ultimate proof of that.

Perhaps my greatest concern is it does not address the real problems facing Hawke's Bay. We have nearly the lowest wages in the country, high unemployment low population growth, lack of job growth, and plummeting visitor numbers. How will these things change with an amalgamation.

Certainly we need to get our act together. Is a super city a better way to the future?

Visitor figures misleading

2009-08-18T02:53:00.000-07:00

British PM Benjamin Disraeli is credited with being the first to use the phrase “Lies damn lies and Statistics”

Its a very apt description of the situation involving visitor statistics for Hawke's Bay. Each month accommodation providers throughout the country submit figures from their guest registers thereby effectively measuring the health of the tourism industry. The results published as regional visitor nights are broken into domestic and international, and by type of accommodation, motels, backpackers, hotels and camping grounds. Generally any errors in design are repeated every year so the figures probably give a reasonable indication of direction, if not absolute accuracy.

The problem is a new element has suddenly emerged in Hawke's Bay which is seriously distorting the figures. Due to serious labour shortages on orchards and vinyards up to 5000 temporary “guest workers” are being bought in each season to provide the necessary work force especially during harvest. The bulk of these workers are from low wage countries in Asia and the Pacific. Their remittances must be invaluable to their families, while potentially of course reducing our obligations to provide official aid.

They are also hugely valuable to our economy because of the work they do, and the money they are spending on supplies such as groceries and accommodation. This spending could be worth as much as one million dollars a week to the local economy.

Many live on their employees properties in caravans and other housing. Some also stay in budget motel accommodation. One such establishment has been housing around 100 such workers which does not sound that many until it is remembered they stay for months. So one hundred people staying for 30 nights adds 3000 to international visitor totals which in May were 13,647 out of nearly the 60 000 total visitors.

Local Regional Council offshoot Hawkes Bay Inc recently crowed about the May international bed nights increasing by 1780 or 15%. Somewhat different to the experience of many in the accommodation industry who are finding conditions are the worst they can remember. Also very much better the 5% reduction in visitor arrivals for the country as a whole, adding weight to the doubt.

International guest night s using backpacker accommodation increased by 2041 for May YOY a larger number than the 1780 for all accommodation categories. There is no reason and no evidence backpacker tourism is growing. Almost certainly this number reflects pickers staying at backpacker type accommodation. This suggests without seasonal workers our international guest nights would in all probability have DECREASED.

Does it matter? Well the real worry is it will reinforce the poor decisions already made made leading to more bad decisions. It serves no purpose other than boosting the egos of those involved. This can be demonstrated by the somewhat fanciful claims by Venture Hawkes Bay CEO that the increase in international visitors is due to their media hosting programme and other initiatives. Somewhat inappropriate considering the true numbers have probably declined. It also understates the continuing and successful promotional efforts of the Napier and Hastings Councils.

If we are serious about increasing visitor numbers reducing air fares and increasing seat availability might do more. If the $1.5million spent by the Regional Council to support Venture Hawke's Bay was instead spent on the airport an infinitely greater return could be obtained.

The Oil Crises

2009-07-03T15:54:00.000-07:00

In early 2008 as oil passed $US100/barrel I predictions it might reach $200/barrel within 2 years and petrol $5.00/litre within 3 – 5 years. From a high of $147 in July 2008 the price then plummeted to just over $32 in December. However long term I believe prices will continue upwards because demand will continue to increase while supply will not.

Oil production has, or is peaking. Most of the world major fields are in decline including the North Sea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Russia, and of course the USA where production topped out in 1970 and has now halved.

Every drop of oil has already been created and producers have found all the easy stuff. World capacity is about 85milllion barrels a day (mbpd). Any major new discoveries, or new technologies will only slow the decline in production. In the long term it's all downhill.

Low prices have severely curtailed exploration so new discoveries are now insufficient to replace the oil we are already pulling out of the ground. New discoveries will need high prices to justify the huge expenditures involved.

The high prices of 2008 suppressed demand as has the most severe downturn since WW2,. Yet the International Energy Agency estimates crude demand has fallen by only 2.47 mbpd or about 3%.

From a low of $32 last December, crude is nearly back to the 2007 average of $US72.36. As $32 is also well above the $US19.84 low following the 2001 dotcom crash it seems the whole pricing structure has ratcheted up significantly over the past decade. .

The worlds biggest oil consumer the USA accounts for over 20 mbpd or ¼ world production, and China which is still growing rapidly even in these difficult times, may move into top spot in just a few years.

We use petroleum for plastics, pharmaceuticals, home heating, and thousands of other applications. The World Energy Council calculates 7% of world oil is used for electricity generation. Replacing this with renewable solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal or even nuclear or coal must be given priority.

The biggest use however is transportation. In the USA it is estimated 50% of petroleum consumption is used for transport, and the figure may be even higher in New Zealand.

Oil is not going to run out any time soon but it could become very expensive. One US study found petrol prices need to quadruple for demand to halve. The inelastic demand for oil is means it takes large price changes to cause relatively small changes in demand. Or small changes in demand can force quite large changes in price, as evidenced by weakened demand and plummeting oil prices after the $147 peak. A return to very high oil prices could plunge the world back into recession. The very high fuel prices of 2008 probably contributed to the present economic downturn as people stopped travelling, and were forced to give up normal purchases so they could fuel their cars.

While environmentalists, planners and governments damn the motor vehicle we need to accept two realities. The world aspires to owning a car, and motor vehicles are a huge driver of economic prosperity. Much of the improvement in living standards over the past 100 years has been the result of improved transportation.

While public transport is far more fuel efficient, congestion and parking difficulties seem more important reasons for its use. The fact public transport needs subsidies and the support of draconian anti car measures suggests it is failing to respond as it should. Artificially encouraging public transport may in fact be distorting the situation.

If we want to retain any semblance of life as we know it we need a new approach because the fuels we now use are not a long term option. Alternative fuels must be developed. They must be portable and storable. Biofuels and hydrogen have both been touted as solutions but there are huge costs involved setting up the infrastructure . Biofuels may compete with food supplies, while hydrogen poses massive technical problems.

In the short term smaller vehicles and diesels offering greater fuel efficiency and lower CO2 emissions seem the most practical solution. Longer term electric cars are probably the only option. For the moment batteries have insufficient storage and are slow to recharge. A huge amount of research is targeting the problems. Some lightweight sports vehicles now boast up to 400Km between charges and in Israel a network of quick exchange battery stations is being developed. Generation and distribution can be built on existing electricity systems.

Meantime if we want to retain the style of living to which we have become accustomed and limit the extent to which central planning controls our lives, we must cut consumption to maximise the remaining life of the finite oil reserves that exist while we decide then implement viable long term solutions.

The Tourism Problem

2009-05-29T17:34:00.000-07:00

Last week during a submission on the Hawke's Bay Regional Council 10 year plan, Wine Country Tourism revealed the disastrous state of our visitor industry. In addition to pointing out our visitor numbers have been in decline for 10 years, they also disclosed Hawkes Bay has one of the lowest international visitor numbers of any region in the country. This latter point should not be a surprise because the situation had been pointed out to all 3 councils just two years ago by consulting companies APR and BERL as part of their airport investigations.

Clearly the true position totally challenges the endless feel good PR pushed out by the councils and others who want us to think things are hunky dory. Of course if they had revealed the truth it would have raised serious questions about the competence of those whose job it is to drive the visitor industry.

HBWCT were asking the Regional Council to inject some urgency into the coordination of tourism activities and to expedite the development of a comprehensive visitor strategy. The Regional Council manages Hawke's Bay Inc which was formed in 2005 as a successor to Vision 20/20 and is funded equally by the 3 councils.

During the presentation it was disclosed they do not expect to have a visitor strategy until 2010/11 begging the question why they are in charge of tourism at all? Since its inception Hawke's Bay Inc seem to have accomplished little so it is probably unrealistic to expect an effective tourism strategy.

In the past 4½ years over $7 million of ratepayer funding has been poured in, yet little of value has been delivered other than a rumored $120 000 salary for the Chief Executive and mushrooming staff numbers. Clearly there has been major people problems because in spite of the remuneration it took nearly a year to find the first chief executive who then left within a year, and was replaced by an expatriate bought back from Singapore at great expense. He also left on completion of his obligatory 12 months. So we are now onto the 3rd Chief Executive in just over 4 years.

Our new Government has correctly identified Australia as our best future visitor opportunity. Visitor numbers from Australia have held up well in these troubled times. As fuel prices start to escalate again Australians will find trans Tasman travel quite attractive compared to longer haul trips to Asia, Europe and North America. Relative proximity makes New Zealand attractive but the problem for Hawkes Bay we have no affordable or convenient links. If we want Hawke's Bay to be a part of this we need to get real about travel. The indisputable reality is the modern overseas visitor travels by air, and Hawke's Bay needs decent air services if we are to succeed in attracting a share of these people.

Of course we can't compete because we have an airport that quite simply is inadequate. Visitors arrive in this country to places where there are modern innovative and affordable air services. They normally have a choice of airlines. With choice comes competition, ample seats, and affordability. Not so for Hawke's Bay. Here we are at the mercy of Air New Zealand a monopoly supplier who can provide as many or few seats as they choose, at what ever price they decide on.

For example last week I booked a flight to Auckland for the last Saturday of August, some 14 weeks away. The best price I could get for a one way flight was $160. Last week Emirates were offering return international flights from Christchurch or Auckland to Sydney for just $159. No wonder our visitor numbers are dropping.

We need to question our spending priorities. In addition to funding the Regional Council controlled HB Inc both Napier and Hastings provide significant budgets for visitor activities so total expenditure is much greater than the $7 million spent on HB Inc so far. Had this money been used to upgrade the airport we would now been a position to move forward and cater for the real needs of travelers when economic conditions improve. As it is we are still locked in a 1960's time warp.

There is no point in continuing to spend money trying to entice people to come here if we are not also prepared to provide the necessary transport infrastructure. If we don't want visitors then let stop pretending we do and at least save the money we are now wasting.

The Population Dilemma

2009-05-03T21:27:00.000-07:00

A dose of reality from our civic leaders would not go amiss. In spite of all the hype about how Hawke's Bay is attracting people the statistics tell a different story.

For the year to June 2008 we had an increase in population of just 0.2%. Only Wanganui, Invercargill, Rotorua and Gisborne are growing at a slower rate while the fastest growing regions of Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga all grew by 1.5% or more. Dunedin for years the butt of jokes asking if the last person to leave would turn out the lights, is now growing at about about 3 times our rate.

Longer term statistics tell the same story. Between the 2001 and 2006 censuses the population increased by 3.4% compared to 6.8% for Otago 6.4 % for the Bay of Plenty and 7.8% for the whole country. Projections suggest numbers could start declining within 20 years.

The issue of population growth is especially relevant right now because our councils are now preparing their 10 year plans. Surely the starting point should be the likely number of people living here.

Slow growth may not be bad. Less people means a smaller environmental footprint, but we need to consider this option carefully because growth seems essential to prosperity.

Growing numbers means more houses, more roads, more drains, more water systems, and more just about everything. The people involved in building and doing these things generate incomes which they spend, creating more economic activity.

If we look at Wairoa a downward spiral of people leaving, low prices for houses, a lack of houses being built, and a shortage of jobs seems well under way.

History suggests when the population falls the economy falls over. Ireland lost half its population in the 1800's, the population of Japan has been stable for several decades and declined by 51,000 people in 2008. In Russia the population has dropped about 5 million people since the fall of communism, while the former car capital of the world Detroit USA has lost half its 2 million residents since the 1950's

Wile there was a bit of a lift over the past few years these places seem to be heading back towards their normal depressed states.

There are two forces behind population growth , natural increase and immigration. Demographers claim it needs 2.1 births per couple just to maintain population at a stable level. This level of reproduction now occurs in only a few countries such as India, Africa the Middle East and believe it or not Australia. Most countries in the developed world have no natural increase the result of declining birth rates and the increasing mortality of an ageing population. Where population is growing it tends to be due to immigration (often illegal) from Africa and Middle East.

In Australia immigration accounts for half the 1.22% annual increase.

So back to Hawkes Bay. The fact we are growing slowly is indisputable. For the June 2007 year births exceeded deaths by 1036 yet the estimated overall increase in population was only 400 meaning at least 600 more people must have left than arrived.

This must be depressing the demand for housing and many other developments. Builders and other skilled people will eventually shift elsewhere in search of work and businesses may close down or shift.

Lack of population will also down grade education and health amenities so it will be more difficult to hold or attract skilled and highly paid workers.

Our representation at national level will decline. Thirty years ago we had 3 parliamentary electorates now we have two. In time this will likely decline further to just one. Fewer representatives means a smaller voice in the clamor for resources.

While Government is funding huge projects such as Eden Park, building motorways, electrifying commuter rail systems, and generally boosting the economies of the major urban areas we are being largely ignored. If we continue to shrink relative to the rest of the country we can expect to fall even further behind.

We need to make a conscious decision on the issue of growth. Doing nothing is not an option.

Perhaps its time to ask our Mayors justify their annual trips to the UK immigration fairs. The money spent might be better used finding out why so many people are leaving. Probably they are young and looking for opportunity, education and excitement. It's claimed they eventually come back, but do they? Or perhaps the question should be do they return before they reach their twilight years when their main contribution to the local economy is providing work for caregivers?

Extend the Runway

2009-04-22T23:06:00.000-07:00

Water scientist Brett Stansfield believes the runway at Hawke's Bay Airport should not be extended because in his view air travel is fuel inefficient.

Contrary to his claims flying is in fact fuel efficient when compared with auto's. Air travel also saves time, and is the only realistic means for long distance or overseas travel. A flight to Auckland using turbo prop Q300/ATR 72 type planes uses about one litre of fuel/15Km/passenger (70% full), or about 20 litres for each passenger over the 300Km journey.

In comparison a car gives about 10 Km/Litre (or 12 Km/Litre/passenger when adjusted for the average 1.2 passengers carried). Since the distance by road is 450 Km, half as far again as by air, each passenger accounts for almost 40 litres of fuel, nearly twice that of flying.

Now for longer journeys using B737/A320 type aircraft direct travel to Australia will carry each passenger nearly 25 Km per litre (80% full) and will also eliminate the 20 litres now wasted by each passenger flying via Auckland.

Mr Standfields views on flying are just Green party rhetoric and is typical of their double standards. Retiring Green Party MP Nandor Tanczos accepted a tax payer funded business class freebie world trip as a parting perk and party Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons is a regular flyer. How else could she get to the voters?

Both the Green Party and Clark/Cullen Labour Government obstructed the runway development for over 5 years. We now have a more enlightened Government.

However the delay has allowed the airport to amass nearly $5 million towards the project and the cost has likely come down in the current financial environment. Prime Minister Key's proposed domestic treatment for trans-Tasman flights, and a possible security upgrade at Hawkes Bay Airport are significant developments, eliminating two of the reasons historically used as a crutch by the 3% of people APR consultants discovered were opposed to the extension when surveying the attitudes of residents for the local councils.

Mr Standfords seems unaware both BERL and APR calculated multi million dollar returns to Hawkes Bay each year and discovered Hawkes Bay attracts only half the number of overseas visitors that might be expected. Hardly surprising considering the extra costs, transfer delays, and unappealing small connecting aircraft. Already some 75 000 passengers a year travel between Hawkes Bay and Australia.

Now if we lived in Europe or Japan where high speed trains offer city to city travel times that are competitive with flying he might have an argument, but we don't. Here the automobile is the most likely alternative.

Before we worry about flights to Australia however we need domestic competition to reduce fares and increase seat numbers. This requires a runway extension to allow services by jet only domestic airlines such as Pacific Blue and JetStar.

Perhaps Mr Stansfield should stick to water where presumably he has some expertise.

Bold moves should be made now to ensure we are competitive when better times return.