BayBuzz - Be in the know

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

January 17, 2012

BayBuzz has argued that the measurement test for clean water used by the HB Regional Council has been determined by Councillor Ewan Mc Gregor’s standard — “If I can see my toes, it’s OK.”

Councillor McGregor says we have it all wrong. He’s organised a field day for anyone who wants to get the ‘truth’ about the Tukituki. It’s not clear whether he plans to take his shoes off.

From Councillor McGregor …

Look Tom, you’ve got it all wrong. I actually posted that photo, where ever it was, to show off my feet, not the Tukituki (although, admit it, it actually looks pretty good). I have a female acquaintance who has proclaimed them to be the sexiest feet she has ever seen.

But talking of the Tukituki; you’ve had a lot to say about its state, and fair enough – that is, fair that you have your say, not necessarily fair as to your criticisms. Well, I’m just concerned about that wonderful river as you are, but seek to match concerns with solutions.

For that reason I am, with HBRC and CHBDC support, organising an afternoon for the 2 February to look at what is being done – or not done – and planned, by the councils, and dairy farmers too. (Programme pasted below.) I hope BayBuzz readers will take advantage of an on-site inspection, hear expert opinion*, and offer any suggestions they may have. This is an exercise in information, not public relations.

And talking of solutions, what should the Regional Council do to fix Lake Tutira? We have purchased the land in the catchment and destocked it (and naturally ceased topdressing), allowing regeneration and planted trees. Yes, if there’s a health problem it’s a worry and needs addressing, but a suggestion as to its improvement, other than the need for greater clarity in public information, may help.

As a footnote, Guthrie Smith, who died soon after the 1938 storm, went to the grave believing the lake was doomed. (See page 16 of Tutira.) Notwithstanding the current problem, if he could see it today he would be delighted.

Cheers

Ewan Mac

Media Advisory – Wastewater & Dairying Info Public Field Trip

A public information day is planned for Thursday, 2 February 2012 to look at measures to improve water quality in the Upper Tukituki River. This will look at current water quality, proposals to remove Waipukurau and Waipawa wastewater from the river, and a visit to a dairy farm in Central Hawke ’s Bay. The day is being facilitated by the Regional Council in conjunction with the CHB District Council and organised by Hawke’s Bay Regional Councillor, Ewan McGregor.

The emphasis is to impart information on site, and to engage with the public in open discussion.

Timed to start at Shag Rock at 1.00pm – midway between the Tamumu and Patangata Bridges – there will a presentation from the HB District Health Board and the Regional Council. This will be followed by a visit to the Waipukurau oxidation pond, and to view the Regional Council’s forestry block a short distance up Mt Herbert Road .

The day will conclude with the dairy farm visit.

Further information will be publicised during January 2012.

From Baybuzz …

*Buyer Beware! The “expert opinion” will be supplied by council staff.

•  Print This Post

January 16, 2012

Fine food and Paratene Matchitt too. Our art commentator Roy Dunningham raves about the Paratene Matchitt exhibition now at the Black Barn Gallery until 5 February.

Paratene Matchitt At His Finest
By Roy Dunningham

Some artists burst upon the scene like supernovae and then spend the rest of their lives wondering what to do next, like Robert Delauney or Andre Derain, or self-destruct like Jackson Pollock or Van Gogh. While others, like Rembrandt or Paratene Matchitt, quietly grow in strength over the years and just get better and better.

Te Kooti Series 43

Napier artist, Paratene Matchitt, has been around for a long time but his latest showing at Black Barn Gallery sees him at his finest.

Matchitt was one of a group of talented, young Maori artists who emerged from Teachers’ College in the 1950s and 60s. The enlightened National Director of Art Education (is there even such a position now?), Gordon Tovey, encouraged these artists to draw upon themes and motifs of Maori Art in their own work. This practice would certainly not have been encouraged in the University Art Schools at that time. Indeed, as recently as 1982 the two leading books on New Zealand art, one by Keith & Brown, the other by Docking, mention only one Maori artist, Ralph Hotere.

In spite of this lack of official recognition these artists were to change the face of New Zealand art as they employed imagery from both traditional Maori art and European Modernism to express increasingly political ideas. In so doing, they also inspired a younger generation of Maori artists.

Matchitt doesn’t use overtly Maori motifs such as kowhaiwhai in these latest works, but there is a strong feeling of the chevron and spiral sections of whakairo and the geometry of taniko patterns. What he does do is use the Catholic and Zionist symbols appropriated by Te Kooti and his followers, who found parallels between the struggles of the Israelites and those of colonised Maori. Te Kooti knew his Bible and even translated some of it into Maori.

The works in this show are based around the theme of Te Kooti and his white horse “Pokai Whenua”. Te Kooti identified with the rider of the White Horse in the Book of Revelations and believed his horse had supernatural powers. In Matchitt’s work the horse and rider are heroic figures, personifying ideals of belief, strength and defiance in the face of adversity. This theme also has a precedent in European art depicting leaders, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon.

One of the most engaging aspects of Matchitt’s work is the interaction he creates between positive and negative spaces – i.e., the filled in bits and the plain bits or background. What he doesn’t do becomes, in a way, as important as what he does do. His decision making in design is unerring and strikes just the right balance between excitement and harmony, while his unlikely choices of colour are interesting to say the least. One astute viewer was heard to say, “He challenges us with his colour selection.” But, again, it works.

Te Kooti Series 45

You can enjoy these works from several different viewpoints: their political strength and Maoriness, their sense of history, or for their ancestry in European Modernism. Better still … enjoy them for all those reasons.

One thing is certain, if you are seriously interested in contemporary New Zealand art, you should see this show which runs till 5 February. Paratene Matchitt is one of our greatest living artists at the top of his game.

Roy Dunningham

•  Print This Post

January 13, 2012

That seems to be the motto of the District Health Board and the Regional Council.

With a headline last Wednesday that literally screamed — Children scream from rash after Lake Tutira swim — HB Today reported the plight of several families who took a swim in the lake in the days after Boxing Day.

Several adults and children — all of whom had the misfortune of getting in the water — suffered painful rashes over areas that had been exposed to the water.

While the families were enjoying the lake, the water was tested (the responsibility of the Regional Council) and as one camper reported to the newspaper, “the guy said it was ‘perfectly fine’”. Presumably HBRC can explain what testing it conducts that yields such instantaneous — and apparently inaccurate — assessments on contaminated water. Perhaps it’s Councillor Ewan McGregor’s “I can see my toes” test, which is his barometer for the quality of the Tukituki.

And then there’s the ever-vigilant public health section of the HB District Health Board. The DHB doesn’t test the water itself (reflecting a division of labour decided nationally between the Ministries for Health and the Environment), yet it is responsible for adjudging whether water is dangerous to human health. So it relies on the measurements of HBRC. It’s not clear what would happen if our local DHB lost confidence in the Regional Council’s monitoring process or results.

In this case, the relevant DHB staffer told HB Today that “‘it’s always been known’ that Lake Tutira was not a swimming place, but a recreational place”.

So, let’s understand this.

A lake that apparently  is never suitable for swimming has no signs warning people against swimming. But that’s OK, says the DHB … locals should know better, and who cares about visitors just passing through … its our lake after all!

But, giving the DHB the benefit of the doubt, maybe I’m the only one, being a confessed non-native, who would not know that ‘recreation’ at a waterway does not include swimming.

If one had a suspicion that the lack of any warning (or otherwise) signs at the lake, the internet-savvy could always check the Regional Council’s website, as I just did (look for this section of B 4 U Swim).

But again, I’m left befuddled.

If you check on the status of Lake Tutira there, you get a mixed message.

One side of the chart says: “Suitability for recreation: Very Poor” And that provides a hotlink leading to an explanation that the water probably contains human or animal faeces in it and recommending folks to “avoid” swimming in it.

However, the other side of the same listing awards Lake Tutira a “Green Mode” rating, which “Indicates there is minimal health risk for recreational activities involving contact with water.”

So if the vacationing family from Dannevirke got to Lake Tutira, saw no warning signs, but still being cautious, used their satellite access to hook up to the HBRC website, which signal should they have believed?

The passivity of the DHB in situations like this is something BayBuzz has questioned before. They are responsible for protecting public health, and that includes protecting us from water-borne disease. Yet they leave themselves totally at the mercy of the Regional Council in terms of getting the relevant water quality tests. Pray that the worst outcome is only a rash.

The Regional Councillors were up at Lake Tutira back in November for a barbeque. With summer approaching, perhaps they could have thrown a few warning signs in the back of the van! No wait, isn’t sign-posting the DHB’s job? I’m so confused.

Tom Belford

•  Print This Post

January 11, 2012

Last Thursday, HB Today virtually endorsed the Regional Council’s proposed dam project for Central Hawke’s Bay, with passing reference that conservation and iwi concerns about water quality would need to be “acceptably managed”.

Here’s the editorial, which asserts: “Early financial modelling suggests a $300 million a year boost to the region’s gross domestic product from the dam and irrigation project.” Gee whiz, I thought, that sounds even better than the projected payoff promised from the ‘regional’ sports park!

HB Today was kind enough to publish my letter to the editor questioning their enthusiasm, which I expand upon here …

As a member of the stakeholder group reviewing this proposal, I would advise HB Today to keep its powder dry.

“Acceptably managed”?! For sure, water quality throughout the Tukituki catchment will need to be protected — indeed, enhanced — if this project is to proceed. That will be a mandatory. How the Regional Council hopes to guarantee that protection and enhancement is yet to be revealed … but they will offer their case over the next several months.

However, before we even get to assessing those issues, the overall economic and financial viability of the scheme must be established. For one thing (and this is only one of many financial issues yet to be addressed), there would certainly be costs associated with any scheme promising to mitigate the effects of adding as much as 25,000 hectares of intensified farming to the Tukituki catchment. What are those costs? How accurately will they be projected? Who will bear them?

The HBT editorial takes the economic benefits as a given, but that case is still to be even presented to stakeholders or the public, let alone convincingly made. This is a potentially $150 million (or more) project. Heaps of rigorous financial analysis must be put on the table before the public will know if this dam holds any water.

Time after time, the accuracy of our councils regarding their projections of the economic costs and benefits of infrastructure projects — from Splash Planet to the Opera House to Ocean Beach development to the new museum to the sports park to the new sewage treatment plants — has been challenged, then dismissed out of hand by councils and their consultants, and then the critics have been proven more right than wrong.

Councils, in their determination to sell pet projects, oversell the benefits and understate the costs. And sadly, only the extremely rare councillor, like the eternally pesky Wayne Bradshaw on the Hastings Council, even challenges the numbers. Which Regional Councillor will demand clear and convincing answers when the dam project comes to its decision point? Most of them, like the HB Today, already gush with unqualified enthusiasm. And even if the will exists, the homework required to be a probing defender of the public’s purse and environment when faced by a council staff/consultant juggernaut exceeds the capacity of most councillors.

Yet the financial and environmental implications of this $150 million (or more) dam scheme make the projects mentioned above pale into relative insignificance. Imagine if they get it wrong!

We all need to know much more about this proposal … and then adequate time to consider the full facts and arguments carefully. Maybe a convincing case will be put forward by the Regional Council. It would be great (I would argue essential) to have a win/win outcome from such a massive investment. But it’s premature for anyone to be making any endorsements … the case is still to be made.

Tom Belford

•  Print This Post

January 10, 2012

On Monday, we featured the ‘Visions’ articles in the current BayBuzz mag.

But there’s heaps of other good stuff too …

In Beyond the Bandwith Blues, Keith Newman looks at the race to install ultrafast broadband in Hawke’s Bay. If you want to know what all the fuss is about and should we care … read Keith’s article.

It seems like gazillions is being spent on cycle paths in the Bay. Where is all this pedal power taking us? Kathy Webb looks at this huge investment in Cycling Hawke’s Bay.

Mark Sweet explores the realm of personal transformation … its intriguing past in Hawke’s Bay and some of its present alternative practitioners in New Age Is Old Age.

Local volunteers have committed hundreds of hours to planting at the Guthrie-Smith Arboretum at Lake Tutira. In Ambitious Plans for Guthrie-Smith Arboretum, Kay Bazzard tells the story of this treasure … and what lies ahead.

With her usual passion, Janet Luke takes up a cause … the plight of battery chickens in Do Hens Suffer in Battery Cages?

Inside Havelock North looks at issues ahead for the urban centre of the village.

And rounding out our features is Corporate Punch Up for Battered Families, by Keith Newman, mentioned in yesterday’s post, which explores the irony of a violent charity event benefiting victims of violence.

As usual, you can read and comment on these articles individually by using the links above, or you can view the articles exactly as they are printed in the mag by using our online reader.

Enjoy!

Tom Belford

•  Print This Post

January 9, 2012

Local headlines remind us almost daily that Hawke’s Bay has a serious — and apparently escalating — youth violence problem. Children following in the footsteps of their parents.

Can we fight it with hugs?

Yes! says a new policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, that nation’s premier association of pediatricians, based upon fresh analysis of two decades of scientific research, which confirms that early exposure to ‘toxic stress’ for infants, and even fetuses, can have biological effects … effectively hard-wiring certain predispositions and behaviours into the individual.

As reported in this NY Times column:

“Toxic stress might arise from parental abuse of alcohol or drugs. It could occur in a home where children are threatened and beaten. It might derive from chronic neglect — a child cries without being cuddled. Affection seems to defuse toxic stress — keep those hugs and lullabies coming! — suggesting that the stress emerges when a child senses persistent threats but no protector.

Cues of a hostile or indifferent environment flood an infant, or even a fetus, with stress hormones like cortisol in ways that can disrupt the body’s metabolism or the architecture of the brain.

The upshot is that children are sometimes permanently undermined. Even many years later, as adults, they are more likely to suffer heart disease, obesity, diabetes and other physical ailments. They are also more likely to struggle in school, have short tempers and tangle with the law.

The crucial period seems to be from conception through early childhood. After that, the brain is less pliable and has trouble being remolded.”

What kind of interventions does this science-based model suggest?

According to the Times:

“One successful example of early intervention is home visitation by childcare experts, like those from the Nurse-Family Partnership. This organization sends nurses to visit poor, vulnerable women who are pregnant for the first time. The nurse warns against smoking and alcohol and drug abuse, and later encourages breast-feeding and good nutrition, while coaxing mothers to cuddle their children and read to them. This program continues until the child is 2.

At age 6, studies have found, these children are only one-third as likely to have behavioral or intellectual problems as others who weren’t enrolled. At age 15, the children are less than half as likely to have been arrested.”

The bottom line for the Academy (download full Policy Statement here):

“Protecting young children from adversity is a promising, science-based strategy to address many of the most persistent and costly problems facing contemporary society, including limited educational achievement, diminished economic productivity, criminality, and disparities in health.”

The Academy urges pediatricians to educate themselves about the underlying biological processes affected by ‘toxic stress’ and to become community advocates for science-based interventions.

How might we get this approach rolling in Hawke’s Bay? You could start by forwarding this post to every pediatrician and GP you know!

Tom Belford

P.S. I’ll put my money on the hugs, but until that approach gains traction, here’s another way to support those in the community who are today trying to help victims of violence. Keith Newman, writing in the latest BayBuzz mag, reports on an unusual charity event on January 28 at Pettigrew Green Arena that will benefit the Napier Women’s Refuge. It’s a ‘fight night’, featuring local corporate contenders in three-round matches (plus some full-on bouts with seasoned martial artists). A fight night benefiting victims of violence? Read Keith’s piece — Corporate Punch Up for Battered Families — to see why and how. The event is called ‘Merciless’ and tickets are available here via Ticketek and at the venue. ‘Merciless’ is organised by Jerry Sargeant of Napier’s Fierce Fitness gym.

•  Print This Post