Bill Dalton

I am reluctant to wade into the wards/no wards for Napier, debate again but I’m going to give it one more go to try and make my point.

Of course I am aware that there are those who simply don’t want to listen – those who have closed minds.

Those who are pro-wards tell us that socioeconomic disparity exists in Napier and that we need ward councillors to truly understand and champion the needs of their constituents.

Frankly I find that insulting.  We don’t need pages of skewed graphs to tell us economic disparity exists in Napier – of course it does.  And to suggest that all councillors are not aware of that and are not championing the needs of the less fortunate, simply displays ignorance.

Equally insulting is the claim that there are three black spots in Napier requiring attention but council doesn’t know it.  To suggest that the council is making policy blind is unmitigated crap.

If you take the pro-ward supporters argument to it’s logical conclusion – the argument that you need ward councillors to champion the needs of their constituents – then those councillors representing more affluent areas could argue that those areas pay more in rates so therefore should receive more of the rate–spend.

It’s just nonsense isn’t it?

You don’t live in a town like Napier all your life – like I have – and not know which areas of the city need extra assistance.  And I must say that most of those leading the change for wards are imports.  An American, a couple of Poms and I think one is even from Hastings!

The situation, in my mind, is simple.

It is a fact that Napier has areas where the residents have been less fortunate in life then residents in other areas.  Those areas that are less affluent need to receive more resources from both local and central government.

The Napier City Council has provided those extra resources in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

And frankly splitting up a hard working team into a rabble of factional interests is going to achieve nothing for the city.

I hear on the radio this morning that Murray Douglas from the Chamber of Commerce is calling for us to extend the Hawke’s Bay Airport runway with all speed.  The reason given – that part of the Pacific Blue airline, might be looking to extend their services to new airports.

Time and time again, since I became a Napier City Councillor, I have asked for someone, or anyone, to present to me a compelling business plan, for the extension to the runway.  No one has even bothered to try and convince me.  The best I have had is to be told that a previous City Council voted for it because it future proofed our airport.

If an extended runway becomes necessary in the future, why don’t we do the work then.  Why aren’t we putting a proposal to airlines – getting a commitment from them – and then building to meet a need.

The extension to the runway at Hawke’s Bay airport is going to cost somewhere around 10-12 million dollars.  That of course just allows bigger planes to land, it does not give us an airport with international capabilities.  For that you need to completely fence the entire area to internationally accepted standards, you need to put in full customs facilities including x ray machines etc., you need to build facilities for immigration and the police – the list goes on.

I would guess that the infrastructure facilities would cost another 10-12 million dollars.

Again I stress, I am not coming down hard and fast against the extension to the runway.  What I am saying is that I have very real reservations about spending up to $20 million and incurring debt to do so, to extend a runway at one of the most difficult times experienced in an economic sense – for a runway that just might be needed in the future.

Frankly, I believe Air New Zealand provides a fantastic service in to Napier especially in terms of frequency.

What I need is someone to convince me that our air services will improve and an extended runway will be an economic benefit to Hawke’s Bay rather than an economic burden like extended runways have been in other provincial cities. 

I’m still waiting.

Dr Robin Gwynn seems to have embarked on a campaign to destabilize the Napier City Council.

This wealthy academic, who was voted off the council at the last election, has set himself up as judge and jury in terms of councillors’ performance.  He has decided who is doing a good job and who is not and strangely enough, he has decided in each ward where there are two councillors, only one is shaping up and in the other wards, no one is shaping up.

How does he know – is there a spy with a predetermined agenda in our midst.

Frankly, Dr Gwynn who retains an unhealthy access to the Napier Mail is wrong.  There are twelve Napier City Councillors who all work hard for the City in their own way. “Maybe they don’t have the ability to produce, or access to, pages of statistics Dr Gwynn,” but they are all working in a way they feel best benefits the City.

And statistics that show that there are no decile one or two citizens – that’s the best off – in Westshore simply beggar belief.

Dr Gwynn’s backing of just two of the 6 ward councillors could well be like presenting the poisoned chalice to those councillors.

The Napier City Councillors are a good team.  There is none of the internal bickering that characterised previous councils – we certainly disagree at times but we get on and make decisions that we believe are in the best interests of all Napier citizens.

Dr Gwynn’s actions smack of the old subversive divide and rule theory.  He doesn’t want a good team working for all of Napier, he appears to want to revert to an adversarial system where a bunch of individual councillors are fighting and scrapping for perks for their own patch.

Dr Gwynn, who was the only sitting councillor to fight for the partial ward system and then didn’t even support the system by standing in a ward – he stood on a city wide basis – paid the price at the last election. Surely this was an indication to him that Napier doesn’t want to go back to the sort of behaviour he would be well aware of.

Napier is in good heart and has a good team guiding it through these very difficult times.

Why can’t Robin just accept that?

I have spent the last two nights reading submissions to the Napier City Council’s LTCCP – the long term council community plan.

Such is the exciting life of a city councillor.

And it is interesting to see who has written these submissions. Some, who have usually never sat around a council table, believe they have the ability to provide solutions for all the challenges the council will face over the next 10 years. Others are more modest in their goals in that they are presenting a submission on behalf of an organization they are part of. Many of these submissions are worthy because the submitter usually has detailed knowledge of the subject that councilors can’t be expected to have.

Inevitably, some are from complete nutters.

There is clearly real confusion in the minds of some submitters in terms of local government areas of responsibility and the responsibility of central government. One submission calls for, amongst a myriad of other things, manufactures and retailers to reduce the use of packaging and labeling. Hardly city council stuff. The same submitter calls for us to promote the buying of fresh local produce and the use of string bags to reduce household waste. We are told that merchandise should be designed to last, rather than to be thrown away after 2-5 years.

Simply not our role and this would certainly not sit well with the next submitter, who seems to suggest that councils shouldn’t be involved in entrepreneurial activities at all.

One submitter is prepared to put her life on the line to prevent an activity proceeding, that was presented as an April Fools prank by a local newspaper.

Many of those making submissions, clearly have no idea of the pressures councils face trying to balance public expectation against income. One quarter of the rate-take goes in roading and yet our road tax on petrol goes to Wellington. Central government is constantly bringing in laws, rules and regulations that have to be administered by local bodies and that costs the ratepayers. It is taxation by stealth. And of course there are the areas where central government simply steals from ratepayers, like the nonsensical $10 a tonne waste minimalisation levy they have just imposed.

Anyway I am sure we will all be much wiser councillors having listened, to and debated, submissions for the next two days.