BayBuzz - Be in the know

February 2, 2012

The Briefings for Incoming Ministers, prepared by the permanent public service for new ministers at the turn of Government, make for fascinating reading. They reflect the central government bureacracy’s views on the priorities and issues that ministers need to address. And they have just been released for public viewing.

The first I’ve read is for the Minister of Local Government, Nick Smith. This passage caught my eye (italics are mine) …

“Addressing the following issues could help to make the local government system more robust and better able to adjust to future challenges and changing environments.

• The local government framework does not provide the tools needed to self regulate. Some districts are facing challenges, such as relatively high levels of debt and rates per capita, and are struggling to maintain the capability and capacity needed to perform their responsibilities efficiently. They may be vulnerable to shocks, and lack the resilience to recover if these occur …

• Communities also have few means to affect local authority decisions. Despite a generally strong local government commitment to consultation, people with an interest in their council can sometimes struggle to get clear information about the issues it faces and the potential impact on ratepayers and residents.

Even if the issues are clear, individuals and communities can find it hard to influence local authority decisions or hold those bodies to account. Elections are infrequent and are blunt accountability mechanisms. Seeking judicial review is expensive and addresses decision-making processes, rather than the substance of decisions. Providing more direct tools for people to review or influence local authority decisions could be useful, and could build on other measures to improve transparency, accountability and financial management in local government.

• Structural change is difficult. Reorganisation of districts and regions may help communities to adapt to changes in their economic, demographic and social circumstances. Making these changes is relatively difficult under the Local Government Act 2002 as a lengthy reorganisation process is prescribed. The infrequent success of locally-initiated proposals suggests the current legal process may be a barrier to communities achieving desired structural arrangements.”

Hmmm!

“Reorganisation of districts and regions may help communities to adapt to changes in their economic, demographic and social circumstances.” What a concept!

While these are the views of mere bureaucrats, they provide a platform from which a minister can justify and drive change on ‘apolitical’ grounds.

Nick Smith (wearing his Minister of the Environment hat) has already signaled his disappointment with local government performance with respect to freshwater management. Who knows what further ideas might be inspired in him, given views like these from the Department of Internal Affairs?!

Tom Belford

P.S. Here’s the full Briefing Local Government 2011.

P.P.S. Are you a BayBuzz magazine subscriber yet?! Subscribe here.

•  Print This Post

January 29, 2012

Last week TAG Oil and Apache Corporation gave their briefing to the Regional Council regarding oil exploration in our region (the area targeted is on Hawke’s Bay’s southern boundary).

Alex Ferguson of Apache actually did all the talking, and it was evident that he’s made this kind of presentation probably hundreds of times. Deliver the basic information. Deflect the macro questions that are beyond your pay grade. Don’t get sucked into weird questions about your company’s name or its interest in alternative fuels. Smile at all times … do a bit of “Aw shucks” … play Mr Congeniality.

Alex has probably faced many more hostile audiences than your average Regional Councillor. Which isn’t to say Alex faced a hostile Regional Council; in fact, the questions from Councillors were tame as usual. No sweat.

He was pushed hardest on the suggestion that the companies conduct a forum for the general public, where anyone interested (and some would be very well informed) could ask questions. But eying the 60-75 fracking protesters who had packed into the Regional Council chamber, Alex demurred. And in a moment of candor he mentioned a lesson that corporate (and council) PR types learnt long ago — why conduct a public forum where you know most of those attending will leave just as unhappy as when they arrived … and get a bunch of media coverage for their protest in the bargain? What’s the upside for TAG and Apache?

Instead, the corporate ‘community engagement’ drill is to have small, under-the-radar meetings where nothing is said on-the-record where it might be reported or seriously challenged. Quietly go about the business of filing for consents, have private meetings with council staff … hell, even fly a few to Canada to chat some more. Just keep your head down, meet the statutory requirements and get on with the drilling. And offer your email address to anyone amongst the riff-raff who wishes to continue the one-on-one ‘dialogue’ (alex.ferguson@apachecorp.com).

Was the briefing worthwhile? Marginally.

We did learn that if fracking were used in Phase 1 (four exploratory wells), which he rated as a 50/50 probability, then 500-600 cubic metres of water would be used per well (can we presume HBRC will hold Apache to that?). That Apache is not looking for or expecting any natural gas … just oil. That we’ll know if there’s any oil by the end of 2012 … but if it’s there, we won’t know its commercial viability for another eighteen months thereafter. And that if development is warranted, the Crown will still need to award the necessary development permit.

All of this assuming the Regional Council awards the necessary resource consents without any conditions that cause Apache to abandon its quest. I think Apache has no worries on that one!

Tom Belford

P.S. CHB farmer Greg Hart, who sparked the impressive 200-strong anti-fracking rally before Wednesday’s Council briefing, has caught some flack for his citizen activism. It seems that, like the rest of us, Greg indeed uses oil! And to some, that makes him a hypocrite for challenging a continued oil-based future. Here’s what Greg says in reply …

Please help … I’m an addict

Since organising the “Rally of Hope’ gathering in Napier on Wednesday which protested against plans to drill and frack for oil on the East Coast and also to celebrate all the good things we have in Hawkes Bay, it has been pointed out to me on more than one occasion the hypocrisy of protesting against oil companies while living an oil dependant life. While I accept the truth in the accusation, it isn’t quite that simple.

I freely admit I am addicted to oil like everyone else I know in NZ. However we now know beyond all reasonable doubt that the continued burning of fossil fuels at current rates will relatively soon lead to irreversible climate change and by later this century the end of civilisation as we know it.

But like any addiction, I think the first step is to admit to the addiction and then seek help. I guess while trying to wean myself I have been making massive changes to the way we farm, concentrating on sequestering carbon into our soils by holistic and biological fertility management. I have stopped using aircraft to apply fertilizer and am trying to perfect holistic grazing management and getting animals to spread fertility around the hill paddocks by giving them free choice minerals. (lots to learn yet!!) I am working to become largely self sufficient in nutrient inputs on the farm using products we make ourselves or are sourced locally. Phosphate still comes from overseas in the form of Guano from Indonesia. We will continue to monitor the feasibility of this.

I have taken 3 young people onto the farm to begin a Community Supported Ag type scheme to produce food for local consumption from an environmentally aware farm, and will soon open our farm not only to the visiting public but to people who want to have some ownership and build a relationship with the land and help to further the dream of sustainability.

Thanks largely to the Air New Zealand Environment Trust almost 100,000 trees  have been planted on the farm in the last 4 years, and we remain committed to increasing bio diversity and restoring eco systems.

On a personal note, I am aware of every litre of fuel I burn and try to justify that in the bigger scheme of things.

So please understand, I am trying to kick the habit!! And that is why I am seeking help from council and government and the wider community because yes I have a problem but I can’t beat it on my own. Like trying to give up smoking while living in a family of smokers and all your mates smoke, I just can’t do it by myself!

While oil is the lifeblood of the economy and most of the stuff we take for granted these days, we have to remember that humans have only had this addiction for a bit over 100 years, an infinitesimal time in the history of our species.

SO HERE WE ARE AT THE CROSSROADS.

Do we put the hammer down and hit the wall in the road ahead at full speed (as per National government policy) or do we take the other road which might look a bit dusty but with human ingenuity and a new found respect and understanding of the web of life this alternative road could be much more fulfilling and give us more time to enjoy the journey.

I am an eternal optimist and believe that humans can still choose the alternative road, but the intersection is approaching fast.

You are invited to join us at www.thefamilyfarm.net.nz

Greg Hart

•  Print This Post

January 27, 2012

On Wednesday, MP Nick Smith gave a sweeping speech to the Nelson Rotary in his home constituency. He focused mostly on issues in his two ministerial portfolio areas … the environment and local government.

With respect to the environment, Smith focused on protection of NZ’s ocean area, freshwater management, and the Emissions Trading Scheme. Here are excerpts of Minister Smith’s remarks on environmental issues. Yesterday we posted on his local government reform comments. His full speech is here.

Nick Smith speech excerpts:

“My first environmental priority this year is to pass and implement new laws to provide for the environmental protection of New Zealand’s huge ocean area. This space of 650 million hectares or 20 times our land mass is known technically as the Exclusive Economic Zone and Extended Continental Shelf.

The issue is that the jurisdiction of the RMA ceases at the 12 mile limit of the territorial sea, yet we need to have a robust system for assessing the environmental impacts of activities in the ocean environment.

We need look no further than the Gulf of Mexico disaster in 2010 as to what can go wrong. A key conclusion of the subsequent inquiry was that an independent regulator, separate from the government agency responsible for promoting mineral exploration, needed to robustly check the environment risks. That is just what we are proposing with the Environmental Protection Authority.

Balance is at the core of the Government’s approach to this issue. There are significant economic opportunities for New Zealand from minerals in New Zealand’s EEZ, the 4^th largest in the world. This legislation is about taking these opportunities in an environmentally responsible way.

A second environmental priority is improving management of freshwater. Few New Zealanders appreciate how blessed we are in having the second highest per capita water resource in the world, nor how much of our export and energy industries depend on that resource.

In the last term of Government, we established the Land and Water Forum which produced by consensus across 58 groups a way forward for improving how we manage water. This year my priority is making progress on getting clearer rules for farmers on what they need to do to better protect water quality as well as progressing clean-up plans for a number of significant rivers and lakes that had over previous decades become polluted.

I am also proposing a new Environment Reporting Act that will improve the integrity of New Zealand’s green brand.

We are the only OECD country that does not have a statutory system of nationwide environment reporting. This is out of step with the importance of the environment to our national identity, economy and quality of life.

A good practical example of this problem is our water quality. There is no consistent system of measurement. It is very difficult to ascertain if it is getting worse or where it is improving and this just compounds the political difficulties in improving management. My aim is to establish a nationwide five yearly report that ranks New Zealand’s rivers and lakes from the cleanest to the dirtiest and identifies which ones are improving, and which are deteriorating. This will help focus communities on better managing this precious resource. The intended author of the report is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to ensure its independence and integrity.”

Regarding National’s approach to our nation’s ocean area, whether the Government’s legislation will be adequate to the urgent need to truly protect our ocean environment is debatable. Here is the critique of the Environmental Defence Society (press release, full submission), in my opinion, NZ’s most expert environmental voice.

With respect to water management, we’ll need to wait and see where the Land and Water Forum lands on key issues … and then how the National Government reacts if the measures and standards recommended fail to strike the right, using National’s favourite term, “balance” (i.e., are too tough for the farm lobby).

But I’m all for Minister Smith’s Environmental Reporting Act. The fact is, there’s no consistency whatsoever in how our freshwater quality is measured. Clear standards and stipulated measurement methodologies can’t come a moment too soon for Hawke’s Bay, where, adding to existing water quality contention, our Regional Council is considering adding 20,000 hectares of new irrigated farming in the Tukituki catchment.

As we offered yesterday, Minister Smith, you have an open invitation to speak in Hawke’s Bay. I guarantee we can pack the house.

Tom Belford

•  Print This Post

January 26, 2012

On Wednesday, MP Nick Smith gave a sweeping speech to the Nelson Rotary in his home constituency. He focused mostly on issues in his two ministerial portfolio areas … the environment and local government.

What he said about local government reform is an important message all local government officials in Hawke’s Bay — and their ratepayers — ought to hear. Here are excerpts of Minister Smith’s remarks on local government. Next time we’ll talk about his views on the environment. His full speech is here.

Nick Smith speech excerpts:

“I want to stress at the outset Government’s view that an efficient, responsive and well focused local government sector is absolutely vital to New Zealand. Our 78 Councils are responsible for $100 billon worth of public assets, employ 23,000 people, spend $7.5 billion each year of public money and everyday make thousands of regulatory decisions that impact on the lives of all New Zealanders.

If they do these jobs well, they can be a turbocharger for New Zealand Incorporated, but poorly and they become a handbrake on this country’s success. My ambition is to work with Councils to ensure they are a help not a hindrance to New Zealand getting ahead.

My number one concern is about spending and the financial burden of rates on households and businesses.

Over the past decade average rates across the country have grown by 6.8% per annum, or by more than twice the rate of inflation. It is telling, that of all the inputs into the consumer price index, rates have gone up by more than any other cost. Food price increases since 2002 have on average increased by 3.3%, transport 2.6%, clothing 0.1%, and housing 5%. The 6.8% rates rise figure is just unsustainable.

…

It is not just rates on the rise that have me concerned. Most New Zealanders would be shocked to learn just how quickly our councils have been racking up debt. Council debt has roughly quadrupled from $1.8 billion to $ 7 billion over the past decade. Debt is the issue of our time. Since 2008 it has been crippling economies internationally.

There has been a lot of commentary about Government and private sector debt increases over the past decade yet Council debt has grown faster than any other sector. It is now at levels unprecedented in the 140 year history of local government in New Zealand.

…

The $8 billion of local government debt might seem low when compared to the $100 billion of council assets. The issue is that very little of these assets are income generating and fewer still could be cashed up. The worry is the capacity to service this increasing debt burden from a relative low income stream of rates. Government has previously put debt limits on councils but these were repealed two decades ago. This may need to be reconsidered.

The underlying issue here is that while central government, households and businesses have responded to the crisis internationally over debt by pulling in spending local government has been slow to respond.

There is evidence of this in the labour cost index.  In 2005 to 2008 period pay rises in the state and local government sectors significantly exceeded that of the private sector.  National has been successful in pulling back state pay costs to an increase of 3.9% over the last three years, a third of the increase over the previous term.  My concern is that local government labour costs over the last three years increased by 7.6% or nearly double the rate of the state sector and still ahead of the private sector.

…

My endeavors will be about how government can better support more efficient councils. Inevitably this raises the question over local government reorganization beyond the big changes made in Auckland.

I wish to make it plain however that the Government is not going to embark on a central government led, nationwide programme of forced change as occurred in the 1980’s. Nor do we take the view that bigger is necessarily better.

I believe the new council in Auckland poses a real challenge for the rest of New Zealand. Its single voice, coordinated planning and efficiency gains are going to give it a competitive edge. Other communities need to start thinking about how their area can do better and what future structure of councils will best assist their regions’ prosperity and growth. From the Government’s perspective, we want the rest of the country as well as Auckland to be successful and want to facilitate a sensible dialogue on reform.”

Minister Smith, you have an open invitation to speak in Hawke’s Bay. I guarantee we can pack the house.

Tom Belford

•  Print This Post

January 25, 2012

The Regional Council, meeting in committee, yesterday unanimously approved terms of reference (TOR) for the regional performance study. The complete TOR are here.

During the open discussion, two key points were firmly established.

First, despite indirect language in the TOR, Councillors understand the TOR to mean that the study must look at current governance arrangements in Hawke’s Bay, determine whether current structure adversely affects the region’s progress and, if so, address those issues.

Second, that public input into the study must be provided for.

During the discussion, it was disclosed that Dame Margaret Bazley is being considered as the study leader. In her distinguished career, Dame Bazley has held several senior public service positions, most recently directing the Inquiry into Police Conduct and the Review of Legal Aid, and serving as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, and as the appointed Chair of the Commissioners governing Environment Canterbury.

Hawke’s Bay would be fortunate to have an individual of this proven caliber and independence conduct its performance review. That said, HBRC Chair Fenton Wilson indicated that additional candidates might be considered.

The Hastings and Regional Councils have now both approved the TOR.

Also meeting yesterday, the Regulatory Committee of Napier City Council was scheduled to consider the same TOR … but in public-excluded session. That’s Napier Council-style public accountability!

Hopefully NCC will condescend to reveal to the public the outcome of its ‘deliberations’ in the next 24 hours or so.

And from there, the CHB and Wairoa Councils must act. The CHB Council meets Thursday the 26th, but there is no sign of the TOR on its agenda. The Wairoa Council isn’t scheduled to meet until 8 February, and the agenda posted online for that session makes no reference to the study or TOR at this time.

Stay tuned!

Tom Belford

•  Print This Post

January 23, 2012

In their first quasi-public appearance in Hawke’s Bay, TAG Oil and Apache Corporation will make a presentation on Wednesday the 25th at 1pm to the HB Regional Council.

I say “quasi-public” because this is not truly a public forum. TAG and Apache have yet to front up in a public forum in Hawke’s Bay where informed citizens can press the companies to respond to tough questioning. Wednesday’s session is actually a briefing, and any questions asked will be those posed by our Regional Councillors.

When fracking was first brought before the Council (at the insistence of members of the public) back in October, it was clear that our Councillors knew diddly-squat about the issue. In October, Councillors were promised a staff report on the issue … if there’s been one, it hasn’t surfaced publicly. It will be interesting to see which Councillors have done any homework on the matter.

Because there are dozens of questions that should be put to Tag Oil about every stage and aspect of the proposed exploration — use, handling storage and transport of toxic chemicals; sourcing of the water needed for the fracking process, as well as disposal of contaminated water afterwards; risks of increased earthquake activity; danger to aquifers; the potential extent of fracking; any risk/benefit assessment that has been conducted for Hawke’s Bay; who pays for what, especially if disaster strikes; extent of Regional Council (or any government) monitoring of the process … just to get warmed up.

In addition, the Regional Council needs to make clear exactly what its role and responsibilities are in this process; indicate what opportunities, if any, exist for public consultation before any required Regional Council decisions are made; and indicate from where HBRC will get the expertise required to play a rigorous oversight role.

Many in the community are alarmed at the prospect of fracking in our region, as well as the stealthy manner in which it has been introduced. A protest rally is planned for Noon on Wednesday at Clive Square in Napier for those concerned.

If you want to know more about fracking, check out our article reporting on the anti-fracking presentation made to the Council back in October by members of the public. It includes several links explaining the process and illustrating why legitimate concerns are being raised.

Tom Belford

P.S. And here are some more recent links:

EPA theorizes fracking-pollution link — Associated Press

Fracking will poison New York’s drinking water, critics warn — The Guardian

•  Print This Post

January 19, 2012

Next Wednesday the Regional Council will consider Terms of Reference for the study our five councils have agreed to conduct regarding the region’s economic, social and governance performance.

Given that the Regional Council wrote the resolution upon which these Terms are grounded, approval should be forthcoming.

These Terms were already approved by the Hastings Council before Christmas, and must also be endorsed by the Napier, CHB and Wairoa Councils.

Importantly, the Terms establish that the study will be led by a “highly qualified, respected, independent person” who will assemble a suitably qualified team to assist. Such independence is critical to the credibility of the review process.

Also, the study leader is to put forward a “recommended methodology for the inclusion of community views on aspects of the study.” This is encouraging, but this language is hardly an ironclad commitment for broad community consultation. Hopefully, as councils consider the Terms, their discussions will underscore their commitment to public involvement.

Substantively, the key elements of the Terms are as follows:

“While the study leader will have some scope to shape content, the study should comprise two main parts:

1. Situation analysis and problem identification

This part should include (but not be limited to):

• an analysis of historic and current economic and social performance.
• an analysis of demographic, economic and social performance trends and what they might deliver Hawke’s Bay and the current policy and intervention settings.
• an analysis of current policies, priorities, interventions, legislative requirements and structural settings in or affecting Hawke’s Bay and any apparent gaps, inconsistencies or policy clashes.
• an identification and analysis of significant inhibitors to prosperity that affect Hawke’s Bay. Significant inhibitors include barriers to success or opportunities not being fully capitalised on at the present time (for example our current failure as a community to unleash to full potential of a significant proportion of our young people).

2. Solutions – How should prosperity inhibitors be addressed to ensure a prosperous future?

This part should include an identification of changes, initiatives and priorities that should be pursued in order to improve the future social and economic performance of the Hawke’s Bay region. The scope of the study is not proscribed from looking at particular sectors or solutions. The study should include relevant comparative analysis of the efforts of other provincial regions (nationally, and internationally where relevant) to be competitive in the modern and future global economic environments.

It is expected that recommendations will be made that will affect and need to be considered by government, the business and not-for-profit/community sectors, iwi and hapu groups and local government. Recommended solutions should be accompanied by an analysis of the likely benefits, with evidence to support them, and an assessment of the costs and negative impacts of change.”

As we read these Terms, we understand the words “structural settings” (italicized above) to reference that the study will indeed examine the region’s present governance arrangements, and the degree to which those impede or advance the Bay’s performance and deliver optimum value. That was certainly the intention when the Regional Council passed its original motion (see BayBuzz report on the resolution passed). Again, this commitment should be re-emphasized when Regional Councillors discuss the matter next Wednesday.

Assuming the Regional Council stands by its word next week, that leaves three more councils to act. Their actions aren’t likely to be completed before the end of February.

My, how time flies in Hawke’s Bay local government.

Tom Belford

P.S. The complete Terms of Reference can be read in this HBRC Agenda document for next Wednesday’s meeting.

•  Print This Post