This particular ‘Dump Council’ campaign is far off in Hamilton. There, it appears some folks have simply had enough. Billboards are going up (you might recall the consternation one billboard created on St Aubyn’s street during the 2010 local body elections!). And check out their ‘Concerned Citizen’ website. This Hamilton protesting makes A Better Hawke’s Bay look like a bunch of polite schoolgirls.

But the virus could be coming to a Council near you!

While dissidents in Hamilton are a bit further along, rumblings are already sounding in Hawke’s Bay (currently about 3.6 on the Richter scale). Especially in Napier precincts, where some big names are contemplating political futures.

Three engines of protest are warming up here in Hawke’s Bay …

1. Folks fed up with the myopia of certain Councils on the need for reorganisation.

2. Folks who think current Councillors are absolutely clueless regarding ratepayers’ intense distress over ‘business as usual’ spending, with commensurate rate increases, in the looming long term plans.

3. Folks who fear the Hawke’s Bay environment will be shafted by the Regional Council’s dam-building and other water policies.

Whether one agrees with all, some or none of these critiques, the political reality is that a ‘perfect storm’ of protest is a-building.

At present, these three constituencies barely overlap and have yet to find each other. However, as the saying goes, ‘politics makes strange bedfellows’, and they do agree on one key starting point … they don’t like many of the incumbents.

Stay tuned!

Tom Belford

“I enjoyed walking along Karamu Stream in Havelock North walkway last week and the restored stream banks until I came to opposite Anderson Park and saw 12 cattle beasts in an unconstrained paddock beside the stream. No fencing even electric. They had worn down the bank and were obviously crushing it to get to water. A shame.

Regional Council said it was being taken up at a higher level. So much for wet bus tickets.”

As I replied to him …

One might ask: If the HBRC can’t keep cows out of the Karamu Stream in the middle of Havelock North, how will they ensure that ‘best practices and environmental protections are enforced over 25-30,000 hectares of ‘intensified farming’ after they’ve built a dam in CHB?

Tom Belford

P.S. Over 75 readers have endorsed my proposal that the Regional and Hastings Councils, in their respective LTPs, provide live web streaming and online archiving of full Council and major committee meetings. Let me know by Tuesday if you support (see my post explaining) and I’ll add you to my LTP submission.

Geological history tells us the lake was once part of a long narrow seaway running between Hawke’s Bay and Wairarapa. The Plains formed through millions of years of tectonic activity, glaciation, and the depositing of limestone, silts, sands and gravels. Before the land was cleared for grazing, it was covered in flaxes and grasses, with kanuka on the dry patches, and stands of kakatia and totara.

The plan to build a $200 million dam and infrastructure, to provide ample water for year round irrigation on the Ruataniwha Plains, will – advocates say – unlock the productive potential of the land. The soil types range from rich silts capable of supporting vegetable crops to patches similar to the Gimblett Gravels, perfect for grapes. Much is suitable for dairy farming. The area involved is 25,000 hectares, a comparable amount of productive land as the Heretaunga Plains.

The Regional Council is investing $5m in a feasibility study and are consulting with interested parties. Conceptually, general opinion sees water storage as a good idea. But it’s the details that matter, and following are the opinions of some of the folk with interest in the process.

ANDREW WATTS

Andrew Watts

Andrew Watts is 5th generation Central Hawke’s Bay. He’s farmed in Porangahau, Onga Onga, Takapau, and Ashley Clinton. As well as sheep and cattle, he’s farmed dairy cows, and grown vegetables and fruit trees. In 1983 he pioneered large-scale spray irrigation on his farm on the Takapau Plains. He currently operates a sawmill for untreated timber in Waipukurau.

“I’m an environmental realist living and acting with a consideration for our environment while being realistic. Considering the environment is part of my makeup, but we have to do things to make the community prosper. We need to create jobs in the farming sector and ag-related businesses, but not at the expense of the environment.

I’m not getting myself in a lather over this dam because nothing will happen unless it’s bankable. Unless the farmers can borrow the money and make it pay, this dam won’t happen. Most of the farmers left are my age and older and they’re not going to borrow that money, so this dam could exponentially modify land ownership in Central Hawke’s Bay. Many will be forced to sell.

Dairying is the only thing you can produce on the land in New Zealand where the person who is collecting the product is trying to pay you as much as they can. Every other product we produce, the person who’s buying and processing, is trying to pay you the least amount of money.

While the Fonterra model persists you won’t stop the dairy cows. The farmer owns the product from the farm to the sale. Everyone else like Richmonds and Affco and Wrightsons are all trying to pay the farmer as little as they can. So all these ideas of growing beetroot and so on is going to be bloody hard work. Most crops are so subject to weather. Not dairy cows.

For this dam to work they have to get the costs right and they have to put in some rules so we can’t degrade the river systems. We have to have nutrient caps, and nutrient budgets. And that might mean caps on the amount of livestock they run per hectare as well. And they’ll have to spread their effluent more efficiently, not just on a few paddocks, but over the whole farm.

The dam cannot go ahead and have livestock in the system, that’s dairy farming, unless the streams are fenced off. I think there should be margins planted in natives, but they have to be decent margins so they’ve got filtration ability. The dam is not a goer unless the major streams in the Tukituki system are fenced and planted properly. Farmers won’t like it, but I’m prepared to stand up to that.

Dairying is not the only thing that could pay the bills. Only a few years ago spud growers in Central Hawke’s Bay were making more money than cows, but you wouldn’t want to know some of the fertilisers and chemicals going into these processed crops. You can get uptight about the nitrogen coming from cow pee, but if you see the amount of fertiliser and spray that goes into potatoes you could get uptight about that too.

A big plus for irrigation is that the guys who’re putting high fertiliser on and irrigating have less leaching problems than those who high fertilise hoping it’s going to rain … because when it rains heavily, it just washes off. Irrigation gives the farmer more control over the uptake of the inputs.
My first job as a 16 year old was on the biggest spray irrigator in the Southern Hemisphere in Ashburton. Ashburton was a town about the size of Dannevirke then, but if you went there today you’d find a thriving, vibrant humming town. And it’s irrigation that’s driven that. It was all pipes, no guns, that was 1968. There wouldn’t be any dairying in Canterbury without irrigation.

It’s interesting with the Fish and Game guys. They’re pretty proactive, but as I keep pointing out to them, they’re actually protecting the possum of the river. They’re protecting an introduced pest. Those trout, and I’ve been a trout fisherman since 1965, have eaten all the native fish. But that lobby is very cunning. They’re working on the clean state of the river but really they’re protecting their introduced pest.”

CAMPBELL CHARD

Campbell Chard

Campbell Chard is General Manager of BEL Group Dairy Farms overseeing seven properties in Central Hawke’s Bay carrying 7,500 cows. He has been involved in dairying all his life, having grown up in Taranaki on his family dairy farm.

“We’re really supportive of the dam. It’s a multi-generational exercise bringing benefits to Hawke’s Bay over the next 100 years. But we have to make it pay in the next 2-5-10-20 years. That’s the conundrum we’re working through; making sure the price the dam is built for is able to be paid for by the users of the water. It has to stack up economically, and environmentally.

As a dairy farm business we have nutrient budgets. We have to manage our effluent well. We’re policed quite heavily on the use of effluent areas by the Regional Council. They have a compliance team and we have to have a consent that allows us to apply effluent to land. We’re already operating within strong boundaries.

The Plains won’t all go into dairying. It will be a myriad of different land classes and farming types. Potentially it’s very exciting. I think the Regional Council’s got a strong community relationship. They listen well. There are good people running the business, and I think they’ll make sound decisions.
What dairy farmers understand well is that we can grow grass and put that grass in the vat as milk. And we don’t have to market it. Fonterra comes along and picks it up and it’s their job to get us the best price. We need to be running an economic business to be able to look after our environment, and we need to look after our environment to have an economic business. Hopefully we can marry those two together well.

If there was an influx of dairying we’re confident that with the rules currently in place, without even making changes, it will not affect water quality. We’re stringently policed by the Regional Council, and we have a transparent open relationship where in our business we invite them to come in and be heavily involved in educating our people. Our focus is running an economic business and looking after the environment.

There are only 80 to 100 dairy farmers in Hawke’s Bay whereas there are 1600 to 1800 in Taranaki and in the Waikato something like 3000. That sort of monoculture won’t happen here. It’s not practical.
I see there’s a strong swing toward environmental considerations, but if that’s too strong, too weighted against the productive economic arm that’s doing its best to look after the environment, then the region will be disadvantaged. So it’s a process of mapping people’s expectations in making sure the environment is protected, but at the same time giving consideration to the business owner’s economic interests. Those two must go hand in hand. If it’s too severely weighted, one way or the other, that’s when you have issues.

I’ve worked in the Waikato where the Regional Council has a dogmatic ‘we will tell you’ attitude, whereas here there’s a consultative approach with buy-in by all parties who want to be involved. They seem to be transparent, they’re considered in their options, and they have a good relationship with the farmers. It’s a great strength to have a Regional Council who consider what we have to say as being important. The Council has some big decisions to make but I think we’re in good hands.”

A hundred pathways, life giving waters and beauty that can only be seen through the eye of a hawk.
Hawke’s Bay Mãori whakatauki (or proverb)

Keith Newman asks whether the vision from the eye of the hawk is strong enough to pull Mãori and mainstream economies together for the good of Hawke’s Bay.

The ability to delivery tangible benefits from the latent potential of Hawke’s Bay’s Mãori economy will depend on strong leadership, improved management of existing resources, wise investment of Treaty of Waitangi settlements and a commitment to tackle the youth unemployment crisis.

The estimated billion dollars of Hawke’s Bay Mãori assets; including ongoing treaty settlements, is a pittance compared with the national Mãori economy, which more than doubled between 2007 and 2011 to $36.9 billion, according to Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL).

Waimarama Mãori Tourism wins rave reviews from tourists

Hawke’s Bay Treaty settlements will have far less impact than other regions; nine iwi (tribes) and hapu (sub-tribes) will each receive around $25-$30 million from the overall payment capped at $170 million.

Former Hawke’s Bay Mãori Business Network (HBMBN) chairman Jason Fox says, failure to go with a single investment entity prevents local Mãori from having sufficient clout to make a real difference.
While local authorities are looking at collaboration to avoid duplication of resources, Fox says fragmented Treaty settlements will see Hawke’s Bay Mãori heading toward patch protection.

“If they don’t nail it down early, the Mãori community will suffer because decisions that have a stronger community influence can’t be made….What is needed is good leadership.”

Fox says the Hawke’s Bay economy is dominated by up to 20 large businesses who will continue to do what they’ve always done and Treaty-based investments of around $30 million, returning perhaps $1-$2 million a year, won’t make much difference.

Ngati Kahungunu, set for one of the larger settlements, sees its payout as foundational to the tribe’s economic revival, planning investments in traditional fisheries and farming enterprises, technology and new business opportunities.

The third largest iwi in the country is already in entrepreneurial mode, developing a $7-$10 million innovation centre at Ahuriri for technology and business, r&d and Mãori culture.

Other groups will go for a mix of land or sea-based assets and cash, and associated management plans to deliver the best return for their people.

Preparing to prosper

Henry Heke, Hawke’s Bay regional account manager for Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Mãori Development, believes the Mãori economy in Hawke’s Bay could be worth up to $1.2 billion including existing assets, investments, businesses and treaty settlements.

He personally knows of at least six Mãori-owned SMEs valued at between $850,000 to a million dollars, employing up to a dozen people, and is aware of another three in that range.

They’re mainly tradespeople in services, installation and construction, including utility companies with their own fleet of trucks and plant, engaged in laying fibre optic cable or power lines or in the decorating or insulation business.

TPK is assisting a number of Mãori businesses achieve growth so that when the economy recovers in 3-4 years they’ll have quality staff, good systems and competitive products and services.

Heke says, business owners have to realise it’s not a charity and they can’t employ family members and look after the nephews and nieces and remain sustainable. “If you ask these guys what it takes to get from a one man band to turning over $160,000 – $500,000 and on to a million, they’ll tell you it requires good systems and processes.”

It’s estimated there are up to 1000 Mãori-owned businesses operating in Hawke’s Bay, mostly small one to five person operations, plus several medium and large organisations and trusts that own significant farming and forestry blocks.

Havelock North-based company director and iwi economic advisor, Karl Wixon, says the best way to describe the local Mãori economy is “a bunch of latent potential yet to be realised”.

He’s been working with the Government’s Mãori Economic Development Panel on regional solutions to Mãori business growth; while there’s no shortage of ideas, he says there is “a shortage of people with commitment to do something about them”.

Wixon says any talk of a Mãori economy has to take into account household income, which is closely linked to education and employment, where Mãori have problem statistics. Ironically, the biggest employers of Mãori are in education, as well as health and social services.

He warns changing demographics should be a wake-up call for the region. By 2050 the workforce will comprise mainly Mãori and Pacific Islanders with a growing number of Asians.

“If you look at current levels of achievement, education and employment and project that forward it’s not a good look.”

He says there needs to be a lift in achievement if the region is to have a qualified, productive and more employable workforce, although there seems to be little effort in tackling this problem.

While there’s increasing pressure at tertiary and secondary school level to prove relevance, Wixon says we’re not good at connecting this with the local economy. Consequently there are dire shortages at both the top and the bottom of the labour market.

“At the top end, Mãori businesses are often deficient in governance and management to help them grow. At the other end we struggle finding a qualified workforce including those who can operate machines or drive vehicles — we’re not proactively addressing this.”

Wixon suggests the missing ingredient is enterprise; preparing Mãori to think for themselves, so they can generate work and business. That means doing a better job of exposing them to the opportunities and what is going on in the region.

Taiwhenua o Heretaunga, one of the region’s biggest employers of Mãori with about 160 staff and a current annual turnover of $11 million, began with government-funded health, education and social services contracts and is now investing in property and housing.

Chief executive Alayna Watene encourages Mãori businesses to take a more positive stance to the challenges they face. She says individuals and boards need to operate in an environment of confidence if they’re to take calculated risk and build a strong entrepreneurial work ethic.

Watene says the global economic crisis is forcing the Government to explore public-private partnerships with organisations that can deliver better services than it can, and creating “lots of opportunities for well educated and experienced Mãori”.

She says, the large number of young people “not engaged productively” in Hawke’s Bay – 50% of Mãori youth are unemployed – can be seen negatively or as a resource to be managed with “vision, strategy and effort”.

The need for social, cultural, educational and up-skilling should Present an opportunity for certain types of organisations to invest in the future. “Work out what you have to offer that will give confidence so they can apply themselves educationally or in practical terms.”

Watene says great leaders emerge in times of change, suggesting Mãori businesses take a history lesson from Watties, Fletchers or Carters who “cut their gums on services or products that were required in their time”.

They looked at what services or commodities were required, made good choices, gained momentum, built capacity and capability and then went national and international. “Mãori businesses are no different.”

Larry Dallimore is a stone in the shoes of Hawke’s Bay bureaucrats, engineers and councillors. They wish he’d stop pestering them about the dynamics of coastal erosion and his proposed Westshore seawall.

Dallimore, who has lived at Westshore for over 30-years, is first to admit that people’s eyes mostly glaze over when he tries to explain the coastal processes that are unique to Hawke Bay and the simple construction measures that could stop erosion and save councils millions of dollars.

Larry Dallimore

Although the retired contractor doesn’t have academic ABCs after his name, he’s got old school, hands-on credentials, having worked for all the local authorities over decades constructing reclamations, seawalls and breakwaters.

Dallimore’s often verbose attempts to deliver reports on how he sees things seem to get him into deep water, particularly when he advocates the use of local limestone for coastal protection, rubbishes the 2007 Komar ‘shoreline erosion’ report and criticises the tendency for councils to ignore the flexibility in the National Coastal Policy Statement.

When he’s not playing golf or fishing, Dallimore has made it his business to keep a watchful eye on decisions relating to Westshore erosion, which extends 2.8km from the headland at the Iron Pot (Whakarire Ave) to just past the end of Westshore Esplanade.

He’s attended all the meetings about the Napier City Council’s proposed 155 metre breakwater at Whakarire Ave and remains astounded at “the nonsense some people come up with” and the reliance on out-of-town experts to over-ride previous reports.

His current pet peeve is Napier mayor Barbara Arnott’s “fantasy” that if you add a new breakwater and keep renourishing with gravel, the sand will eventually come back to beaches north of the Port of Napier.

Dallimore wonders why Napier City would rather pay millions for ineffective beach renourishment and a new breakwater than have an open discussion around his concerns, and the possibility his seawall proposal might have merit.

He reckons private property, Kiwi Beach public toilets and large areas of reserve in the erosion zone could be saved through extra strengthening to existing rock protection. By adding a permanent rock seawall the Westshore Surf Club and the entire beach reserve would also be secured, saving millions on renourishment costs.

Dallimore is convinced breakwater extensions at the Port of Napier, and the deepening of the shipping trench which gathers northbound coastal sediment, have been major contributors to Westshore erosion since the 1970s.

Rather than Napier ratepayers footing the bulk of the cost for protection works and renourishment, he wants to see the Port of Napier and its 100% owner HBRC taking ownership for the man-made problem and the solution.

The earliest attempt to protect Westshore was in 1987, when a badly executed renourishment plan, using incompatible material sourced from the estuary, turned the beach into a muddy mess. Then Beca Infrastructure designed a shingle bank with a “moderate repose” but with each swell Dallimore says beach access becomes impossible.

The renourishment plan is supposed to include dredge droppings brought in from Pacific Beach, Marine Parade, which would otherwise end up in the shipping lane and be removed at a cost of over $30 m3. However the dredges can’t get close enough to the Westshore erosion zone.

In fact, most of the spoil gets washed further north to Bay View where, according to Dallimore, they’re appreciating the improved surfing, a wider beach and greater demand for properties.

Overall, he says, the $4 million Westshore nourishment programme is a costly waste of time, made worse by the use of increasingly smaller pebbles from Pacific Beach that are essentially rejects from years of shingle plant screening. “It’s an engineering myth that you can put pebbles on a sandy beach and expect them to stay there or that you will eventually restore that beach.”

Breakwater resistance

Dallimore says similar nourishment issues plagued the beach at Whakarire Ave, where material was simply swept north over a seven year period. NCC built a rubble and limestone wall in 1994 to reclaim and protect the land, but it funnelled wave energy to the southern side of Westshore worsening the erosion.

NCC now plans to mitigate that with the $4 million breakwater project, plus increasing the height of the seawall and re-profiling the backshore, in the hope it’ll create a new sandy beach on top of a reef, something Dallimore struggles to comprehend.

He believes the Beca Infrastructure designed breakwater will only funnel even more wave energy northward into the erosion zone. He tried to explain why it won’t work in a 30-page ‘discussion note’, then a further 34 page addendum to Napier councillors but claims nothing was discussed, explained or refuted.

Dallimore wanted a public debate with himself and the Beca engineer answering seawall versus breakwater questions. That seemed acceptable until a point of order was raised, essentially stating “we can’t have our paid consultants being quizzed by our residents”. A seminar was then held but he was barred from attending.

He began discussing the issue with the Beca engineer reviewing his report, but that dialogue was shut down by Napier mayor Barbara Arnott, who apparently insisted it was costing the council money and therefore ‘unacceptable’. He could never quite figure that one out.

Although issues about length are holding up the breakwater consent process, Dallimore reckons it won’t get past submissions from surfers who believe it will ruin their surfbreak, HBRC interpretations of the coastal policy, and opposition from environmental groups.

That may swing the focus back to his 2.8km rock seawall for Westshore. However, Dallimore worries that even if it is considered consentable, it may be subject to artificially inflated costs. The case in point is the “over designed and extravagant” repair job on the badly maintained Hardinge Rd seawall.
Napier City contracted HBRC to repair a 45 metre section of the seawall; it used filter cloth, crushed concrete, limestone rubble and a 1.5m layer of limestone boulders costing $135,000 or $3000 per metre.

Dallimore reckons a simple ‘rip rap’ seawall with a base of graded rubble then a rock armour layer would have been adequate at less than half the cost.

Because the environmental, recreational, cultural and economic values of Hawke’s Bay are totally intertwined in our rivers, and we are about to make hugely important decisions about them. Starting with the Tukituki, but extending to the rest of our rivers as well. Decisions whose impact will be felt for generations.

A half-billion dollar water storage scheme in the Tukituki catchment. Possible curtailing of sewage discharge into the Tuki. Two dams in the Ngaruroro catchment. A complete re-write of the ‘rules of the game’ governing water allocation for irrigation throughout the region. New standards for water quality and river flows. Fracking.

What we grow and produce in Hawke’s Bay, whether we restore our biodiversity and our acclaimed trout fisheries, whether we enhance our recreational opportunities, who will control and own our water infrastructure, how much we will spend to ensure ample and clean fresh water … all will be determined by decisions now working their way through the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

First up are huge decisions regarding management of the Tukituki. So we have focused on those. But understand the Tuki issues and you will understand what’s at stake with the rest as well.

We present a great deal of information and a wide range of views in the pages that follow. You’ll hear from environmentalists, farmers, Mãori, the Regional Council itself, advocates tilting for or against the schemes being proposed.

Thirty-four pages on freshwater! We don’t want to drown you. But you’ll see it’s not just BayBuzz who regards these issues as urgent. Virtually all of our political, business, farming and environmental leaders do, and they are already waist deep, pushing the decision-making this way or that.

However, these issues are too important to the future of the Bay’s environment and economy to be left to them. Any ‘solutions’ require a broad, informed public mandate. These are your rivers, carrying your water … and they should be managed according to your values.

Every two years, Lincoln University conducts a massive nationwide survey seeking to determine just what the values and attitudes of New Zealanders are with respect to freshwater and our rivers.

The latest survey reports that:

• 60% strongly agree there should be no further significant pollution discharges into the water.
• 60% agree more water should be left in rivers and streams for environmental and recreational reasons.
• 52% say the #1 cause of damage to freshwater is farming.
• 75% disagree (25% strongly) that in freshwater management decisions the main emphasis should be economic.
• 64% agree that on their own, voluntary approaches by commercial water users do not protect the environment.
• Finally, 82% agree regulations that are enforced are a good way to protect the environment.

I suspect a great many people in Hawke’s Bay share these views. In fact, I’ve challenged the Regional Council to conduct a professional benchmark survey in Hawke’s Bay asking exactly the questions as the credible Lincoln University study.

What you believe is critical. Because as you’ll see, much of the debate revolves around two critical areas – what ‘balances’ to strike between economic and environmental considerations, and the extent to which ‘best practices’ should be required of (not urged upon) farmers.

Form an opinion as you read our articles. Then express it!

A place to run errands – pick up mail and groceries, have a coffee and occasional meal, book some travel or see a movie. Or see your banker, accountant, web developer, or hairdresser. Or a place to buy au courant fashions, shoes, jewelry, gifts … or browse the $2 shop?

Obviously you can do it all in Havelock North. Park for free (shop employees not welcome). Walk to everything.

Sounds like the perfect mix of small-scale businesses. Must be thriving.

Well, not exactly.

BayBuzz spoke with several merchants in Havelock North to gauge how they see the ‘Village economy’ these days.

Overall, the last few years of down economy have seen consumers of all incomes tighten their belts, showing a new frugality that’s just as evident in Havelock North as the rest of the material world. But merchants do seem to see spending coming back, some saying their past year has been quite strong.

Andrea Napier, one of the Village’s most seasoned merchants

One perception that’s quickly dashed is that Village retailers bask in an enclave of well-heeled clientele driving all those BMWs and Range Rovers. It turns out they use those fancy wheels to get to the airport, and from there to ‘serious shopping’ in Sydney or North America.

Noted one local, someone will fly business-class to New York, put a serious dent in their credit card, then come back and wait for a half-price shoe sale.

“How do you get people with money to spend it here?”

Village retailers have considered a ‘Buy Local’ campaign in the past, but have shied away to date, fearing that other shopping precincts might ‘retaliate’.

In any event, there are plenty of households in Havelock North living on fixed incomes who in fact don’t have much discretionary income to spend. And that percentage of the population is growing.

Another misconception is that Havelock North swarms with out-of-towners who come to the Bay for weekend events and then spend in local shops. Only partly true say shop owners. With few exceptions – one retailer mentioned the Hospice Holly Trail weekend – these visitors spend on lodging and restaurants (whose owners and employees might in turn spend in HN), but not necessarily in retail shops … they have plenty more selection back home.

One merchant pointed out the importance of having the right mix of businesses in the Village. “The hairdressers, butcher, movie theatre, banks bring people into town over again, and then they might also shop for other things.” But another wants more diversity, “too many hairdressers, dress shops, shoe stores and real estate offices”.

While the mix is important, individual merchants have no control over it – the business next door could be a strong draw (a thriving café) … or it might not be (a slow-traffic realtor).

Then there’s buzz. As one retailer said, “Shopping is an experience … you engage with it and you’re reinforced by salespeople with the right attitude. Otherwise you might as well shop online.” It also might require a critical mass of businesses willing to stay open more, including Sunday and some weeknights.

Unfortunately, if there’s one place where there is no buzz, it is Havelock North on a Sunday afternoon, and even many Saturday afternoons. It seems that most self-employed believe that five and a half days of work is enough. Without more establishments prepared to open on Sundays, weekend retailing will suffer. Those event attendees and wedding guests can’t do much more than have brunch and head back to the big city.

The consensus advice from retailers? Cater to the locals (outside visitors are gravy). Stress quality at all price points. Stay abreast of market change. Offer individualized service. It’s a small community … customer knowledge and word-of-mouth counts.

Said one retailer, “By far, most of my business is repeat business from locals.” And another, “Our locals are well-traveled and discerning. Whatever is being sold, they need to be offered quality … and a smiling face.”

On merchants’ wish list for making the Village more prosperous … greater loyalty from local consumers (“Don’t just say it, live it!”); some male-oriented retail (“Why must you go to Hastings to buy a golf ball?”); less Hastings Council pre-occupation with salvaging Hastings CBD; more Village events to draw foot traffic, especially on weekends; an art & music presence; and more professional services businesses (higher income employees, and more likely to bring in revenue from outside the Bay).

Without question, Winder is an experienced local government practitioner.

He also, as a consultant to the HB Regional Council, completed a recent examination of ‘shared service’ opportunities for HBRC. That study focused on potential collaboration between HBRC and other regional councils, reflecting HBRC’s predisposition at the time the work was commissioned to deflect focus from structural reorganisation within Hawke’s Bay.

Now Winder comes to town wearing the ‘regional performance study’ hat, with terms of reference whose vagueness leave to the imagination how seriously he will look into local body reorganisation.

So the first question we should ask when Mr Winder arrives on the scene is this: Do you see your brief as including a robust examination of the capacity of HB’s current governance structure to meet the region’s future challenges?

It’s a simple question, but one our elected ‘leaders’ have managed to dance around for months.

Mr Winder shouldn’t earn a dime until he is crystal clear with the region’s ratepayers on this point. After all, we’re paying his fee.

And speaking of who is paying his fee, a second question arises: How does Mr Winder plan to include public consultation in his inquiry? Extensively, we hope and should expect. But again, the terms of reference sidestep this issue, with our council leaders merely asking for his advice on this matter.

So, just two simple questions for Mr Winder. How he answers them will determine the ultimate value and credibility of his undertaking.

Tom Belford

P.S. Looking at my notes from Mr Winder’s presentation on March 14 to HBRC, I’m struck by two comments he made:

First, in response to a Councillor inquiry, he characterised shared services initiatives in HB to date as “quite limited”.

Later he observed: “To make any progress, you need higher level meeting of the minds of Councils to willingly and constructively explore the opportunities.” Uh, oh!

Between 1946 and 1965, 1.125 million babies were born in New Zealand – 77% more than in the 20 years before the baby boom began.

As they reach 65 and move into the later decades of their lives, the challenge for business and central and local Government, will be to minimise the disruption caused by their wake and to fully understand the shape and nature of the changes New Zealand Baby Boomers will create around them.

Researcher Sharon Buckland provides a rosy picture of the attitudes and expectations of this cohort in her extensive study entitled the New Zealand Boomer Dreams Study 2009. She notes that the profile of the Boomer cohort is vibrant, adventurous and searching and that Kiwi Boomers don’t see themselves as ‘old’.

They have no intention of retiring; they intend reinventing their lives and the concept of work to suit their lifestyles. Life for them is a never-ending search for meaning and self-actualisation; wanting to enjoy every moment of the rest of their lives to the fullest, on their own terms; and to leave the world a better place when they die.

Given gloomy predictions of earlier forecasts, it is reassuring to note that they have no intention of ‘sponging’ off the young and expect to pay their own way all their lives.

Dealing with change

This sounds fantastic and one would like to believe that Boomers aged between 50 and 65 are making plans for a fulfilled and secure future. But probably many just hope for the best. Realistically, we may expect the best and plan for it, but change is with us whether we like it or not. We resist the very idea of change, and the older we get the more terrifying it becomes.

Change can come in an unpredictable way and sometimes with frightening suddenness. When my husband died at the age of fifty-nine, for me it was like falling into a void. In my case, I was young enough (56) to make a new life here in Hawke’s Bay and in a relatively short time made new friends. Over the next years I would travel; grandchildren were born; I found exciting new interests; enjoyed my growing family; and thought long and hard about preserving my finances and maintaining my house and garden.

But time moves on, and needs change. Take housing, for instance.

A decade down the track I am beginning to think about my housing needs for the next twenty years … something smaller, easier and cheaper to maintain. I’m thinking that too much money is tied up in this place and that the garden is too large and it needs constant work.

So, I will have to face up to another change; which means I’m interested in what housing options are on offer – the small townhouses, the retirement village, or a cottage. Whatever … it should be in the swim of things close to town, a small place, affordable and charming.

If that is not scary enough when seen in such a perspective, consider this: humans are utterly dependent on the minuscule 50-250 mm layer of topsoil that covers the tiny 11% of the Earth’s surface that is used for all agriculture (or 3% for crops). If there was just rock and sand here, only a few hardy life forms like bacteria and algae would survive. That requires a pause for serious reflection…

Topsoil is a remarkably complex living organism, made up from a mix of nutrients, organic matter, fungi, bacteria, insects and worms. Its riches have evolved over millennia, and have nurtured the abundant growths upon which we and all living things thrive. It has been a vital and fundamental part of this ecosystem for as long as there has been life on Earth. Hopefully it will continue to do so, but once eroded or poisoned it will take thousands of years to rejuvenate itself.

As I have tried to stress in all my writing for BayBuzz, we are at a unique point in the history of the human race, where we have reached the limits of the planet. What this means is that everything that has gone before no longer applies – everything must be rethought and redesigned for a new and quite different future. It does not imply a retrospective criticism of past attitudes, but it does require some pretty serious paradigm shifts in the way in which we think, we do business, and in particular the way in which we relate to Nature. The Earth is not a limitless source of produce, nor is its capacity to absorb waste limitless.

So who owns topsoil? Or maybe the question is really should anyone own it? Traditionally it has been landowners and farmers. Enlightened ones will say that they are not ‘owners’ but custodians during their brief time. They will endeavour to pass on the land in as good, or better, condition as it was when they received it. However the definition of ‘good condition’ is changing and will vary with perspective: does it mean maximum cleared land for maximum output, or does it mean a balanced ecosystem where wetlands and woodlands nurture its health?

Other farmers treat it as their own business to run as they see fit for their own benefit, and resent the intrusion of outsiders who know little about farming.

I think it is time that we had a serious debate about this. Should farming be seen as just another business, where farmers are allowed to make as much profit as they can from the land, whatever they do to it? Or should we all have some say in how the land is used, because we, and our descendants, all utterly depend on it?

A farmer recently said to me, “How dare you criticise us – we are feeding the world!” I replied that the end is laudable but does not justify the means – it is how you are doing it that concerns me. How long can you continue to farm like this, when you are so dependent on oil and imported fertilisers, and on drugs and antibiotics for your animals?

New Zealand was founded on colonial and settler principles. Throughout most of its existence it has been a rural economy with its wealth lying in the land. Its social contract separated city and country, leaving the rural sector to look after the land while the city ran the commerce. The laws and values of the new country reflected this attitude towards the land which was a resource to be exploited: forests were clear-felled without replanting; wetlands were drained to create more farm-land. In the 19th century, when nature seemed so boundless, there were few immediate negative consequences, but then later in the 20th century we came up against the finite limits of the planet, and of our own land.

1. What is HBRC’s position on the current – or benchmark – environmental health of the Tukituki? Do environmentalists or other government assessments agree with that assessment?
2. What standards, indicators or measures will HBRC use to establish the environmental health of the Tukituki? Do these include measures of macroinvertebrate health in the river?
3. Do environmentalists agree that proposed water quality and minimum flow standards are sufficiently stringent to protect river health?
4. Does HBRC commit to enhancing water quality in the catchment as a result of implementing the proposed scheme? What pollution reduction targets will be used and enforced to achieve such improvement?
5. How frequently and in which locations will water quality be measured?
6. To what extent will recreational activities be enhanced in the catchment as a result of water storage?

Environmental impact of dam/reservoir

7. What landscape enhancements will be implemented by HBRC with respect to the reservoir?
8. Are there any adverse effects on aquatic species above the dam?
9. Will the dam be operated so as to guarantee that minimum flow requirements are met throughout
the catchment?
10. What alternative land use and water management options, instead of building a dam, have been examined to achieve water quality and security goals? Why were these alternatives set aside?

Environmental impact of farming

11. Given that current environmental problems with the Tuki stem inlarge part from farm run-off associated with current levels and types of farming in the catchment, how can substantially more – and more intensive – farming be added to the catchment without causing even more deterioration?
12. If an aggregate permitted nutrient load is set for all users of the scheme, how will individual farm nutrient discharge (based on what and how they farm) be allocated within that total catchment load?
13. What discharge mitigation measures is HBRC prepared to require of farmers in the catchment to improve water quality? What legal instrument will require such measures?
14. How will implementation of these measures by individual farmers be monitored? What penalties will apply if farmers fail to meet discharge limits?
15. What information is available regarding farmers’ current use of such measures and best practices? In other words, what improvement potential exists, assuming such practices are not now uniformly used?
16. Will mitigation measures apply only to farmers taking water via the water storage scheme, or to all farmers in the Tukituki catchment?
17. If intensified farming nevertheless leads to deterioration of water quality, what provision is made for more rigorous protections to be implemented?

Environmental impact of point discharges from Waipawa/Waipukurau

18. Will new, higher water quality standards be met in 2014, as already required by the Environment Court?
19. Does HBRC concur that the standards required to be met in 2014 are appropriate?
20. What treatment scheme is CHB adopting to meet those standards?

Project cost

21. What is the full cost of the water storage infrastructure – i.e. the dam and delivery system to the farm gate?
22. What is the cost of the infrastructure to the farm gate for individual farmers? On what basis will this cost be allocated to individual farmers?
23. What is the estimated on-farm cost to farmers for new irrigation distribution on their farms?
24. What is the estimated cost to farmers for annual operating expenses of the scheme?
25. What is the estimated cost to farmers for environmental mitigation measures?

Economic benefits

26. How many farmers could potentially participate in the scheme?
27. What is the projected farmer uptake for the scheme over the first five years of operation?
28. Can farmers trade their water allocations?
29. What assumptions are made about increased capital value of land irrigated by the scheme?
30. What assumptions are made about increased farm output (i.e., what is produced and how much?) and its market value for users of the scheme? What is the reliability of these assumptions given individual farmer’s control their own land use?
31. What economic benefits have been projected for downstream farmers who arguably will benefit from greater security of water supply?
32. What flow-on region-wide economic benefits have been projected from increased farm output? What uncertainties are involved in these projections?

Financing scenarios

33. What share of total scheme capital costs will be met by user-owner-farmers?
24. Will any provision be made for farmer support in meeting these costs (e.g., deferred payments, below-market financing)?
35. Will HBRC (i.e., the general ratepayer) pay any part of capital or operating costs for the storage scheme?
36. What other ownership/investor participants are projected, by type – central government, iwi, supply chain investors, other commercial investors?
37. Given the range of potential financial participants, what is the projected ownership pie – which owners own how much of the scheme?
38. What is assumed cost of that funding (expected ROI or interest rates)?
39. How can owners sell their water rights or otherwise exit the scheme?
40. Are overseas investors expected to participate as owners/lenders?
41. Are any special review or consent requirements in place regarding potential foreign ownership of water infrastructure or water rights?
42. What are the investment objectives of various parties?
43. What ‘public good’ value has been assigned to the scheme and what is its justification?
44. To the extent borrowing by HBRC or any HBRC-controlled unit is involved, will it be within established HBRC borrowing parameters?
45. How is risk distributed? Specifically, what financial exposure is carried by the HBRC (i.e., ratepayers) on this project? Is this an appropriate level in the context of HBRC’s overall investment portfolio?
46. Is water effectively given a commodity price by this scheme?

Governance Questions

47. What is the overall structure and mechanism to ensure public accountability for the business, environmental and other public good objectives of the storage scheme?
48. What Mãori involvement is anticipated in any part of this governance structure?
49. What are the business objectives of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company in relation to the water storage scheme?
50. When and how will ratepayers have their say on whether this project should proceed?

All public hedging about feasibility studies aside, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council wants to build a dam on the Makaroro River in Central Hawke’s Bay. Full stop. And it’s moving mountains, with $5 million worth of analysis, to make a case that both economic betterment and environmental enhancement can be achieved by the project … and that we can afford the investment.

This article looks at the economic side of the proposition – its full costs, the economic benefits claimed, and the possible funding scenario and its implications. The Regional Council is still guarded in its public discussions of the scheme’s economic aspects, although it is clear that substantial financial analysis has been done and inquiries made to prospective financial players.

The most financial information is available in the Regional Council’s recently released Long Term Plan (LTP). In preparing this article, BayBuzz is relying additionally on ongoing conversations with HBRC senior staff, farmers and others who have heard HBRC presentations, and individuals associated with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC), which will eventually control and oversee the scheme if it goes forward.

What are the full costs?

In its LTP, the Regional Council indicates the dam infrastructure will cost $170 million, noting this is a best estimate, awaiting detailed engineering and design work. More recent comments indicate this number might reach $250 million.

However, this amount, itself daunting, is not the full scheme. The $250 million would cover construction of the dam itself, landscaping and earthworks associated with the 90 million cubic metre reservoir that would be created, and the headrace and other distribution infrastructure required to get the stored water to the farm gate (i.e. to individual farmer-users).

Much of the uncertainty around the ‘infrastructure’ cost relates to geotechnical issues and pending decisions about how water will actually be delivered to farmers – via canals or underground piping.
The significant further cost of the project actually relates to what happens to the water once it gets to the farms. Farmers need distribution systems to reticulate the water throughout their properties. One farmer (see Mark Sweet’s article) estimates his ‘on farm’ cost to irrigate a 330 hectare farm would approximate $500,000, or about $1500 per hectare.

Project spokesmen, including in this magazine, have put the on-farm distribution price tag in the $300-$400 million range … “even more” than the $200+ million off-farm cost, as one HBRC presentation puts it.

Then there’s the cost to farmers of mitigating the environmental impacts of the additional and/or more intensified farming they would undertake. For example, planting riparian strips, fencing off streams, building cow sheds to capture more animal waste. Although the Regional Council insists that such safeguards will be part of the ‘deal’ that ensures environmental protection, no estimates of these costs have yet surfaced.

All in, therefore, it is not unreasonable to estimate the full cost of the storage scheme at closer to $500-$600 million. At this scale, the water storage scheme represents the biggest financial investment ever contemplated in Hawke’s Bay, and ranks as one of the biggest in all of New Zealand.

This investment would create for its owners (whoever they might be), an asset worth even more than the Bay’s much-prized Port, which has recently been re-valued at $177 million. It would dwarf – and some say, with unclear risks and returns, would put at risk – the Council’s entire existing investment asset base of $256 million.

As we’ll see later, HBRC doesn’t intend to fund the dam project on its own. Nevertheless, with the dam as the new keystone, HBRC direct investments are projected to grow to $488 million over the next ten years … a daunting prospect to any ratepayer.

From the farmer-user perspective, the huge macro-numbers ultimately boil down to, “What will it cost me to use the water on my farm?” The cost (to the farm gate only) currently mentioned is $9500 per hectare, although council staff signal that they’re aiming to get the figure down to the $6500/hectare range.

Ultimately, affordability of the stored water for individual farmers is key to the economic viability of the scheme. Right now, many farmers – including many who hold existing water consents they could simply retain – fear the price will be too high. If significant numbers elect not to participate in the scheme, the project falters. We’ll come back to this point.

With some effort he lifted the stiff steel skeleton over the mower handle and wheeled it into the centre of the shed. The bike shuddered with rigor mortis.

Its rear brake pads gripped the rusted wheel rim like a dead man’s hand. He left a black line on the shed floor as he dragged the creaking machine into the light beside the window.

The buckled front wheel gave him a painful flashback to the day a decade ago when he had swept triumphantly past his son on a downhill track in the forest park. His moment of fleeting victory over the nine-year old boy cruelly snatched away by a pine tree stump which had sent him cartwheeling initially into a bed of pine needles and branches and eventually into a hospital bed for a week.

His heart sank as he surveyed the bike. Both tyres were beyond flat, their perished treads oozing over rust-freckled rims. The handlebars were at right angles to the frame. The torn seat faced to the rear.
Unlike today’s ultra-sleek machines, his bike had only three gears – two in fact because the lowest gear had kept slipping, resulting in several crippling groin injuries.

In three weeks’ time he was to join friends in a Sunday ride around one of Hawke’s Bay’s cycle trails. It had seemed a good idea at the friend’s dinner party that night after a couple of bottles of Craggy Range reds. It seemed a really bad idea now. He stared at the bike again.

He’d have more chance doing the ride on the lawnmower, he thought glumly.

Late that afternoon he gingerly pushed open the door of the bike shop. Rows of gleaming bikes stretched either side of the aisle. It puzzled him that none had mudguards. In fact they looked only partly assembled. One caught his eye. It reminded him of a racehorse waiting to burst out of the starting gates. A tag on the low-slung handlebars said it was made of carbon fibre. Apparently some of its metal bits were titanium. Its price tag was $800. He whistled under his breath. Then he counted the noughts again. Good God, it was $8000!

“Nice bike,” said a voice. He jumped.

A lean young man in a bright lycra shirt covered with logos looked at him doubtfully.

“Do much riding?”

“Not a lot these days,” he murmured. “Probably need something more basic really.”

The assistant nodded and took him to the far end of the shop. He stopped beside a bike with big fat knobbly tyres and a thick metal frame. It was bright red and was emblazoned with the name Crimson Sun.

“Made in China,” said the assistant. “We sell lots of them. Normally they’re $345 but it’s on special for $300.”

An hour later he wheeled his new bike self-consciously into the street. In a bag he carried a lycra shirt with an unpronounceable French racing team’s logo on the back, lycra cycle shorts with padding in the seat like a baby’s disposal nappy, a bright red helmet, heavy duty combination bike lock, a bike pump, water bottle and both front and rear lights, batteries not included.

The next day he rode to Clive. He didn’t ride back. Luckily he had taken his cellphone. His wife found him walking like a Sumo wrestler along Farndon Road. His thighs were chafed raw. His backside numb with pain. The Crimson Sun was draped over the edge of the car’s boot. They didn’t speak on the way home.

Two weeks later he was at the parking lot by the river ahead of the others. He suffered the hoots of derision with a thin smile. His time would come. He let them ride ahead while he sorted out his multiple gear options. Then suddenly, everything clicked. Man and cycle were in perfect synchronization. Crouched over his handlebars he watched his speedometer break through the 20 and 35 km/h barriers. He swerved past his lumbering mates, showering them with a rooster-tail of limestone. Their shouts were ignored as he savoured his moment of glory. Then he looked up to see a frozen tableau of dad, mum and two small children stopped in front of him behind a wooden fence and metal gate across the trail. A sickening crash of metal and they were above — then below him — as he cartwheeled through the air.

“You have a visitor,” said the nurse as she closed the door behind her. He opened one eye and saw his wife framed in the vee of his upturned, plastered legs.

“I’ve sold what’s left of the bike on TradeMe for $50 and that ridiculous cycling outfit has gone to the op shop. I hope you’ve learned a lesson,” she snapped.

He tried to nod but the neckbrace stopped him. He waggled an acknowledging finger out of the plaster cast on one of his arms then lapsed back into semi-consciousness. Suddenly a vision of himself clad in black leather hurtling down the road on a big noisy Harley-Davidson swam into view.

Beneath the mummified blank exterior of his bandaged face, he allowed himself a secret smile.

Last issue he asked me to navigate the pit full of alligators that constitutes the current local government debate in Hawke’s Bay. This issue it’s National Standards for primary school pupils, where some of the alligators involved may be pint-sized, but they’re just as snappy.

Too bad that I know less about these standards than most other people, having had no experience teaching in the primary schooling system!

So I decided to do some research – always a sensible starting point, although more boring than a good old-fashioned opinion. It didn’t really get me anywhere, apart from confirming that I knew more than I thought. There are some very interesting similarities between these National Standards and their introduction, and the difficult and fraught birth of NCEA and standards-based assessment for secondary school students – but more of that later.

After fruitless hours spent trawling through internet sites, newspaper archives and the like, I did what I should have done in the first place. I talked to a real live ‘consumer’ of the standards, in this case my niece, who was staying with us for the school holidays. At the age of nine, she has the family all well and truly sussed. She also seemed to have the standards sorted. They go something like this.

National Standards are a way to tell you where you are up to with your reading, your maths, your spelling and stuff, she said, depending on what year level you are in at school. Some of the kids will be below the national standard, some will be on it, and some will
be above it.

What about the kids who are below it? I asked. Do they feel bad?

She doesn’t think so, because the teacher tells everyone that they all have the whole year to improve on where they are, whether they are below, on, or above the standards, and her job is to help them do that. The teacher says the most important thing is to improve on where you are now, rather than worry about the standards.

So do you know where you sit? I asked.

Yes, she said, because the information gets sent to the parents, and her parents showed her the information. But not all the parents do – it’s their choice.

So what do you think about the national standards? I asked her.

They don’t really worry me, she said. I know what I’m good at and what I need to work on anyway. So I just get on with it really!

A girl after my own heart. Not that I’m biased… She just gets on with it.

Standards measure, not fix

The issue that attracts all the media attention with regard to national standards is, of course, the fact that some people in the education profession feel so strongly about the pitfalls of national standards, that they are refusing ‘to get on with it’, and in doing so placing themselves and their schools at risk of biting the hand that feeds them – in this case the government, who pays their staff salaries, funds most of their students’ learning resources and helps bankroll their building projects.

Speaking of the government, I suspect that the National Standards were introduced as a tool to sharpen up the education sector with regard to that dismal tail of underachieving students – some 20% or more – whom the current school system in New Zealand and elsewhere in the OECD appears to be failing.

To be fair, the government had to do something. Despite spending millions of dollars over many years trying to fix this problem, there’s an alarmingly large group of kids who we simply keep ‘losing’ from the system and society altogether – they’re not at school, they’re not in training, and they’re not in work. It’s a national disgrace and a real worry. And there’s no doubt that if we don’t address the issues causing this, then as a country we are in for an even tougher future than a mere recession can conjure up.

But the National Standards aren’t going to fix the problem – they can simply help measure it. They can give parents and teachers and observers of schools some sort of guide as to how well their children are performing educationally, but standards are only a tool for measurement, and depending on how they are used, could be a very damaging tool indeed. And this seems to be at the heart of the critics’ concerns about the standards themselves – that they are an imperfect device anyway (as most standards and their assessments are) and they can damage children and schools in the process.

Very similar concerns were raised about the changes to NCEA and the introduction of standards-based assessment into secondary schools some ten or so years ago.

The proverbial really hit the fan as I became a new Principal.

I remember facing upset parents at meetings as I tried to ‘inform’ them about the changes on behalf of government, responding to letters from concerned parents and members of the community, treading a dangerous path through union concerns, chairing fiery staff meetings with people sitting on both sides of the debate… and above all, trying to make sure that our students’ learning and life at school was not negatively impacted by the furor.

Maybe I was naïve back then, but as a school leader, I believed that leading the change so that it had the least possible negative effect on our school community was my core responsibility.

And I also believed (and had this confirmed repeatedly in my conversations with every child’s parents at the time of enrolment) that in the end, it’s not ‘standards’ and their measurement that are critical to children’s learning – it’s the things that sometimes can’t be measured easily at all. How safe they feel at school. How safe they feel at home. How good their teachers are. How engaged they are in their learning. How good the school is at helping them to identify what they are good at, and what they need to improve on. How fired up they are about the world and life in general.

Above all, it’s about how much aptitude children have for ‘getting on with it’. Because you can’t beat resilience as a predictor of success – both in education and in life. As adults we all know that. And as adults I believe that we have a duty to model resilience for our children.

Assessment tools will come and go. They will be flawed. Successive governments will introduce them and make the same mistakes regarding implementation and communication that we all do when we’re launching new projects and breaking new ground. Some schools will “game” the system to make themselves and their students look better. Other schools will complain. There’s nothing new under the sun.

In the end – it’s pretty simple from where I’m sitting, and I have my niece to thank for clarifying things for me. National Standards are the latest development in the ever-changing world that is education. We can choose to live with them, recognise their weaknesses and risks, work to mitigate those, utilise the good bits if there are any, and simultaneously get on with the real and complex business of educating all of our young people.

Instead of refusing to implement national standards, we could refocus on refusing to leave any young people behind. Refusing to let any young people simply ‘disappear’. Then maybe we wouldn’t need National Standards at all.

Let the snapping begin!

Less obvious is the work that continues offsite, where museum staff and volunteers are preparing for reopening and the launch of the new facility. On top of such details as packing, moving and unpacking over 100,000 collection items, the team is now creating eight new exhibitions across the fifteen exhibition spaces, all of which are required to open on the same day.

This redevelopment, on the books for more than twenty years, is powered by both a vision for a museum and art gallery that is more representative of the cultural wealth of the region, but also by a pragmatic reality. The Museum holds a very fine collection, owned by the people of Hawke’s Bay and governed by the Hawke’s Bay Museums Trust, but a collection that had outgrown its home. Those who came behind the scenes never failed to remark on the working conditions and the overcrowded facilities in which the collection lived and staff worked.

Now 45 weeks into an 85 week project, there have been a few delays. None of which are expected to affect re-opening; all of which will deliver major long term benefits. In particular, the 1936 Louis Hay-designed museum and gallery will now be one of the few Art Deco buildings in Napier to benefit from what we’ve learnt from the Christchurch earthquake – it is being re-strengthened according to the latest recommendations. While initially invasive, this work will be all but invisible once the refurbishment is completed.

Although the attention of passers-by focuses on the new wing, it is the restoration work on the Louis Hay building that promises to be something of a revelation to those that know the building. The restoration of the old entranceway – the dramatic steps were unceremoniously removed for a loading dock in the 1970s – gives a hint of the grandeur to be revealed. The old oak doors, used for many years in the Century Theatre, will once again open into a vaulted entrance which leads into the Octagon Gallery.

This entrance will be used by those visiting the Regional Archive, home to an extensive collection of photographs, manuscripts, diaries, letters and other printed materials. While these resources are already heavily used by researchers and students, the new Regional Archive facility is being expanded to include specialist archive storage areas, a public reading room and two dedicated exhibition galleries devoted to displaying the history of the region. Cataloguers are working away behind the scenes to deliver a greater understanding of what lurks in the collection and this work will be supported by a new online catalogue – funded in part by Lotteries New Zealand – to ensure a greater degree of public access than ever before.

Many of these newly researched holdings will be included in our opening regional history exhibitions. We have always had difficulty in telling the Hawke’s Bay story, not in the least because the events of 1931 tend to overshadow. The new gallery spaces in the regional archive wing will allow us to tell historical stories either side of that date and thus give both locals and tourists greater access to the history of the region that surrounds them.

On the ground floor of the new wing, the entrance foyer and shop will greet visitors as they arrive through the Tennyson Street entrance. A new education suite just off the foyer will provide a purpose-built space at the heart of the new building for the over 10,000 students who visit the museum every year. The foyer will provide visitors with a new meeting place – while dramatic views from the first floor of the new building will give a new perspective on Marine Parade and what is in effect a new town square bordered by the Museum, the Memorial Arches and the open colonnade of the Masonic.

The 1931 Earthquake exhibition finds a new home in the basement floor of the new wing. This show will capitalise on the success of earlier earthquake exhibitions – while at the same time presenting a raft of new research that has been done using the records of the day. This exhibition will tell the human story of the Hawke’s Bay Earthquake.

New gallery spaces on the ground and first floors will allow for more of the collection to be exhibited, but also make it possible to bring in international touring exhibitions. The exhibition Treasures of the Han Dynasty from Xuzhou in China has already been announced and there will be others to come.
As it stands, visitor numbers to the museum were steadily climbing over the five year prior to closure. This was in a facility that many locals had simply forgotten and that some visitors couldn’t find. One thing is clear – on reopening, nobody will have to ask where the Museum and Art Gallery is … it will be the hottest destination in the region.

While there may well be a hard core of alarmists muscling in on the fracking debate, we haven’t met one yet. But there are a rapidly growing number of citizens – more than 2000 signed a recent petition – who are certainly alarmed.

Until quite recently there was no common knowledge that the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) on behalf of Government, had allocated permits for oil exploration across 1.7 million hectares of Hawke’s Bay and East Coast, or that TAG/Apache would be drilling an exploratory well in Porangahau using the relatively new technology of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, right about now.

As news of wholesale exploration permit allocations across NZ emerged, so did that much feted – or slated (depending on your point of view) documentary Gas Land appear, striking fear into the hearts and minds of many. This documentary follows the aggressive pursuit of oil and gas across North America by multi-billion dollar oil corporates – largely unregulated and seemingly unstoppable – leaving a devastating legacy of environmental destruction, water and air pollution, and severe effects on human health. It is sobering viewing and the many hundreds of local people who have now seen that documentary want assurances that such a situation could never happen in Hawke’s Bay. Not unreasonable.

So who can provide such assurances? The Government?

MED’s role is to allocate permits. The job of managing them is that of local or territorial authorities under the Resource Management Act 1991. Here, that is the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC).
It seems incomprehensible that central government, now touting oil and gas sales as the new economic saviour, has no cohesive strategy for managing what they are hoping will become a major economic industry, little known outside Taranaki. There is no direction or framework to guide consenting authorities in their approach; no integrated regulatory framework; a woefully pitiable pool of expertise to manage and monitor the industry. Just the Resource Management Act (RMA) with each Council applying its own rules and policies under its Regional Resource Management Plans (RRMP).

The debate around environmental impacts, short and longer term, has gone viral; the great divide between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ has grown wider and deeper – with claims, counter-claims, accusations of ignorance on the one side or spin-doctoring on the other.

Time to pause

A pause in proceedings and some critical thinking is sorely needed.

While the onus is on central government to address the calls for caution around the implications of wholesale oil and gas exploration and production in this region, the immediate focus is on HBRC, who must manage the pending consent application from TAG/Apache for an exploratory well in Porangahau.

Not a biggie, you might think. Does it set a precedent? Is it a Trojan Horse? In verbal discussion HBRC chief executive Andrew Newman, says “absolutely not”. In a later written paper, it appears as: “if an industry was to develop in the future … the tests and assessment process may (underlined) become broader as a larger number of bores were considered”. Not so reassuring!

Mr Newman states that, while the RRMP is silent on hydraulic fracturing specifically, there are “sufficient rules to cover consent applications for bores that are used for petrochemical exploration and associated activities”. So is it a matter of finding the right boxes to tick? Will this be enough to reassure those concerned that exploration and production of oil and gas across our region could never get out of hand?

The Council’s stance is clear: “It is not the role of the Regional Council to have a view for or against oil exploration in Hawke’s Bay. Rather, it is the council’s role to gather the information it needs to make an informed decision on any resource consent application it may receive in the future”

A sensible approach. The big question is ‘where do you gather the information?’

There is virtually no resident expertise on oil and gas exploration in New Zealand outside the industry itself (which has a vested interest in progressing exploration), and the Taranaki Regional Council (TRC). Apart from RMA consents for water take and disposal, TRC does not have extensive experience in processing consent applications for fracking. Only in August of last year, following legal advice, did it declare a requirement for consent applications for these activities!

This would be a 77 metre high storage dam, capable of holding 90 million cubic metres of water, creating a lake two and a half times the size of Lake Tutira, and potentially capable of producing up to 6.5 megawatts of electricity.

And this is all before we even consider the environmental, economic and social benefits, which are the main drivers behind this project. It’s a project that requires an investment of around $200 million to construct and up to a further $400 million for on-farm irrigation investment.

The economic benefits and the environmental pay-offs from such a large investment are equally great. It could see almost all irrigation consents taken off the Tukituki River, allowing it to revert to natural summer flows.

In a conventional sense the economics are marginal, given the significant up-front capital injection required to construct such a scheme. Long-term, the proposed scheme is enormously beneficial, with opportunities for increased on-farm employment, as well as off-farm employment in high wage jobs, such as precision engineering, plant servicing, marketing and processing of crops.

This project, in time, will lead to a more diverse community, additional employment opportunities, more wealth, better infrastructure and increased opportunities for recreation.

Driving from the top

We’re fortunate to live in a region with a high degree of social and economic cohesion, as well as having reasonable natural resources. We have a bold and visionary regional council with a strong balance sheet, and leadership that is prepared to make a difference for future generations.

Part of this leadership style includes strong and focused communication in this project through Leadership and Stakeholder Groups which ensures those most closely-affected are kept informed and encouraged to comment as the project progresses. I take my hat off to HBRC for this cohesive and inclusive approach, which I believe will pay dividends in the long run.

Putting water storage into context

In 1960 the globe required 0.44 of a hectare to feed one person. By 2050 this will reduce to just 0.15 of a hectare. By 2050 I predict that there will also be a much higher percentage of the global population demanding high quality food that is safe and produced in an environmentally and ethically responsible way. Our goal in New Zealand will be to sell to customers where price is not their first consideration.

New Zealand’s core business has always been food production and for that to continue we must invest in new and better ways of producing sophisticated high value food for the discerning global customer who can afford to pay.

To grow food you need soil, sun and water. In Hawke’s Bay we have good soils and plenty of sunshine. The limiting issue is water – not the amount, but its availability at critical times. The Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme is about harvesting the peaks to fill the troughs, returning both economic and environmental benefits.

This scheme gives irrigators water security; at the same time, taking those irrigators off the Tukituki River will allow it to resume its natural summer flows.

Let’s talk about the environment

Close to $5 million will be spent on the feasibility studies into this project, with a significant contribution from the Crown. By far the bulk of this expenditure has been vested in understanding the environmental impacts, as well as the economic and social impacts of this project.

These studies are a lot more than just where the dam will go and how big it will be. There are 118 separate streams of work underway within the feasibility study, including:

• Land intensification studies
• Work on both terrestrial and aquatic ecology
• Social impact assessments
• Recreation assessments
• A landscape study
• Cultural assessment
• Traffic and noise assessments

The environment is not being ignored in this process. There is a real determination to understand how this scheme will impact on the environment and to ensure that any detrimental effects are absolutely minimised and that any opportunity to enhance the environment is taken.

In fact this whole project is driven by HBRC’s desire to get irrigators off the Tukituki River and improve the state of the river. This scheme is a win-win situation for Hawke’s Bay’s economy and for the environment.

In my Annual Plan submissions last year to the Hastings, Napier and Regional Councils, I proposed that these Councils fund live web streaming and online archiving of their full Council and major committee meetings.

This year, both the Hastings and Regional Councils are seeking public comments on this proposal in their Long Term Plans (LPTs). Each has investigated such service, establishing that the costs are minimal – $45k to install and $25k per year to operate for HDC, and $26k to install and $38k per year to operate for HBRC. A tiny, tiny fraction of their public propaganda outreach budgets.

As I said a year ago, I expected some Councillors, even some BayBuzz readers, to react … what are you, nuts?!

But I think the case is clear:

1. In terms of public information and civic education, easy and convenient access to Council proceedings should be the paramount consideration … far more citizens can participate in local government.
2. In terms of accountability of elected officials to their constituency… sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Three councils in NZ are already webcasting and archiving their proceedings for ‘on-demand’ online viewing – Taupo District Council,  New Plymouth District Council and Hamilton City Council (and the Auckland Council has put out tenders for the service), in each case significantly increasing public knowledge of Council deliberations.

BayBuzz has received comments from each of the mayors whose Councils are webcast. Here’s what they say:

Mayor Rick Cooper, Taupo – “From my own personal point of view I believe web cam is one of the single most effective tools we now have in our tool box. It records meetings accurately; it helps keep councillor behaviour to an acceptable level; it also helps people who can’t or don’t want to come to meetings see how a decision was reached. Our system archives meetings and if you have a concern about a particular agenda item you can retrieve that item and watch it at your leisure. We seem to fluctuate around 200 people watching live time.”

Mayor Harry Duynhoven, New Plymouth – “We webcast our main council meetings and the Policy Cttee and Monitoring Cttee, excepting obviously the public excluded sections. There has been a modest cost to set up the equipment, but the running cost is minimal. We use internal staff to run the video system and only a small amount of maintenance is needed. To date I think we are the only council doing this and providing the ability to retrieve sections of all meetings on line. This is a very useful feature.” He adds that numbers viewing have “steadily grown”.

Mayor Julie Hardaker, Hamilton – “Hamilton City Council has been live streaming and (archiving) on-demand council meetings since the middle of last year. Our council regarded this as another way of ensuring transparency and also to encourage the public to find out more about what their council is doing. Our council considered various options for this and one of the important features was clarity of image and voice. Feedback from the public has been very positive.”

I’m in the process of tracking down more specific viewing numbers for each Council, but in the case of Lake Taupo, live streaming has ranged from a dozen or so viewers per meeting up to 275. Archived ‘on-demand’ segments are often watched by several hundred unique viewers (972 in the highest instance).

As against that, often I and just one or two others are the only public witnesses to what happens at Council meetings. It’s not a pretty sight! Often Councillors are stunningly uninformed, mired in minutia instead of addressing the big picture, and/or surprisingly petty and parochial. Unfortunately, Councillors have gotten accustomed to operating in this anonymous, unaccountable environment. And the level of deliberation shows.

If you think I’m being harsh, attend yourself. Or, hopefully in the future, watch them online.

One can at least hope that bringing more public witnessing to Councillors’ deliberations might raise the level of discourse. Wouldn’t you try to clean up your act if you knew several dozen or hundred ratepayers might be watching?

Councillors would be less likely to say things they know to be downright untrue or misleading, which I’ve seen too often. They might do more homework. They might not be as likely to dwell on procedure as opposed to substance. They might not be led by the nose by staff as often. They might not spend hours re-arranging parking spaces. They might think twice about dissing (or mis-representing) their neighboring Councils and Councillors.

Indeed, a key benefit of webcasting and archiving meetings might be Councillors and staffs across the region monitoring each other!

Most importantly, you, in your own home and at your own convenience (since all council meetings are during work hours), could watch how your elected officials dealt with fracking, moving your community hall, and spending your ratepayer dollars on really big ticket projects like international hockey fields and sewage treatment plants.

Maybe all this improvement is too much to expect. But I say, let’s give it a try. It’s surely not a budget-buster — in fact, easily absorbed within current public communications budgets.

Nevertheless, the Hastings Council staff has placed the proposal ‘below the line’ in its draft LTP, meaning we need to lobby Councillors to fund the service.

And in the Regional Council, sentiment was mixed when Councillors put the proposal in the draft LTP … some arguing no one would be interested in watching.

So, it’s important that you show your support … right away! Here are the ways you can do that …

1. Make your own submission on webcasting to HBRC. You have only until May 16 … here’s the form.
   Or lobby for webcasting by sending an email to: chairman@hbrc.govt.nz
2. For Hastings, send an email to Mayor Yule at this address: lawrence.yule@hdc.govt.nz
   Formal submissions on the Hastings LPT are closed, but you can still lobby.
3. Or simply flick me a response to this post: tom@baybuzz.co.nz
   I’ll be verbally presenting to both Councils, and I’ll be happy to note your endorsement of webcasting.

Please support this important measure for transparency and accountability.

Tom Belford

Don’t come home too soon

Fraser Holland

FRASER HOLLAND
General manager, Tremains Real Estate

For Fraser Holland, the defining moment in his career path came in a motel room in Los Angeles.
He and his wife Nicola were midway between London, where Fraser was a marketing manager for HJ Heinz, and New Zealand. They awaited a call from the New Zealand Rugby Union. Fraser had applied for a position there and had been short-listed. His first interview had been from a phone box in northern Scotland.

The call would either come, or they were off for a few months in Mexico and South America … and whatever followed.

The call came. And Fraser returned to New Zealand as the marketing manager of the NZRU. How many New Zealand ex pats would like to enjoy that return path?!

Born in 1969, Fraser graduated from Napier Boys’, where he and Simon Tremain were deputy head boys together, a relationship that’s come full circle, as Fraser is now general manager of Tremain Real Estate.

He went on to University of Otago, gaining a bachelor of commerce. By 1997 he was a marketing manager at Lion Nathan Breweries, where he was initially exposed to the business side of rugby. Then it was off to Europe, squeezing in belated OE’s for himself and Nicola. He landed at HJ Heinz, where assignments could have taken him anywhere in the world.

But then ‘the call’ came from NZ Rugby Union. He spent nine years at NZRU in Wellington, negotiating sponsorships, commercial licenses, television rights, and the professional players collective contract, and finishing as a member of the NZRU bid team that secured the 2011 Rugby World Cup hosting rights.

As gratifying as the NZRU post was, Fraser began thinking about a return to Hawke’s Bay. He always intended to return. “I think it’s just in the blood. My hub was Waipatiki Beach and I had memories of growing up with a terrific group of extended friends and family in a small community and so it was always a central thing to come back and build my family around that same network.”

He assumed that his opportunity in the Bay would lie in marketing, and thought to round out his experience by working on the agency side of the marketing business … “to know my competition from the inside out.”

That strategy took him to Ogilvy, where he became the agency head in Wellington, with clients including the Rugby Union. But that path pointed ultimately to Auckland (“I had avoided Auckland like the plague”), and soon it was time to focus on returning to Hawke’s Bay.

The family plan was that Nicola, also from Hawke’s Bay with her own career in finance as a chartered accountant, would stay at home upon the birth of their third child. The time was right, and the opportunity arrived in 2010 to join up with Simon at Tremains. Interestingly, over the years, friends in the Bay had warned him about “coming home too soon.” Their message was that “Hawke’s Bay will always be here, and it’s not changing at such a pace that you need to be here right now.”

Re-tracing his youth, Fraser’s bought a “piece of dirt” at Waipatiki for holidays and family time. Comparing his working life before returning: “Before there was no family life … you can do so much more in your day here in Hawke’s Bay … It’s all about finding a better balance.”

Yes, he says, there’s some loss of amenities and ready entertainment, but “it’s an easy price to pay, and change back.”

Tom Belford

From Telecom to Te Awanga

Tina Symmans

TINA SYMMANS
Director/consultant, Te Awanga

Leaving the big city living behind was the choice Tina Symmans made after watching with shock and horror the news footage of the twin towers attack, 9/11 in 2001. It seemed to exemplify the disconnect she felt in working in a high stress, high profile corporate career and living in the big city environment. She wanted to bring balance into her life and chose Hawke’s Bay for its big skies and stimulating company.

Tina has been living in a cute beach cottage at Te Awanga since that time. Here she can revel in her lush rose-filled garden, fish when the whitebait or the kahawai are running or walk the dog along the shingle banks to gaze out to the ocean’s horizon. “It grounds me,” she says. “It balances the corporate life.”

She has continued her working career through the eleven years she has lived here. Being just 20 minutes from Napier airport has allowed her to commute to work in Auckland and Wellington. Her rationale was that most city commuters are stuck in traffic jams on the major motorways of those cities for at least the 50 minutes that she was airborne.

Tina Symmans was Telecom’s Director of Corporate Relations from 2009 until she resigned in December 2011, following the completion of the de-merger and separation of Telecom’s subsidiary company, Chorus, into an independent, publicly listed company, as part of Telecom’s bid to participate in the Government’s Ultra Fast Broadband initiative. Leading the Corporate Relations team – media relations, government relations, internal communications and community relations – she played a key role in navigating those changes.

Tina regards herself as privileged to have been involved in one of the largest deals in New Zealand corporate history and to have worked with a great team of people to effect the change efficiently and quietly.

More recently whilst working for Telecom, she helped established the Telecom Foundation, which looks after Telecom’s philanthropic and community-based initiatives and continues to serve as a director of the Foundation.

Following her departure from Telecom and resignation as a director of Turners and Growers she has given herself a summer off at home working in her garden, taking a holiday in Australia and giving herself time to relax and look ahead.

Based from home, Tina does consultancy work with businesses and organisations, loving the sense of doing meaningful work in assisting companies in their relationships with Government and politics, guiding them through the labyrinth of impending legislation, and providing guidance on reputation and issues management.

In 2008, Symmans, with Paddy Maloney, Charles Whyte and Bruno Chambers, formed the ‘Future Ocean Beach Trust’ to strategise resistance to what they saw as a major environmental threat to the area. This was in response to the Hill Country Ltd proposal to the Hastings District Council for a plan change to develop 1,000 houses, plus amenities. It was a protracted but ultimately successful movement and through it she became embedded in the coastal community of Hawke’s Bay.

Kay Bazzard

It’s easy to turn a good grape into a bad wine

Leith Ashworth

LEITH ASHWORTH
Winemaker, Matariki and Junction Wines

The path has been straight and true for Leith Ashworth. He’s always wanted to make wines … and make them right here in Hawke’s Bay.

Born in Canterbury, Leith grew up since age four on a farm in Takapau. He schooled at Hereworth and Palmerston North Boys’ High, then off to Lincoln University to study viticulture, gaining his degree in 2004. Now, just past the ripe age of 30, he’s recently become the Winemaker at Matariki Wines, and ‘moonlights’ in the same role for his family-owned Junction Wines.

Rugby is part of his story too. In 2005, after working a bit at Vidal’s, Leith was off to France to play a rugby season. Then back to Vidal’s, over to the US for a few months to work in the harvest season, then to France again (host of 2007 Rugby World Cup), then a third contract in France, then finally back to Hawke’s Bay, landing at Matariki in 2009. Whew!

Along the way, Leith married Tracy, Canterbury born and bred, a Health Promotion Advisor for the District Health Board.

Throughout his excursions, Leith had one goal … bring everything useful he observed about winemaking abroad back to Hawke’s Bay. In that respect, Leith’s time outside the Bay was much more tightly focused than most of the ‘returnees’ interviewed in this series. One might query whether he ever really ‘left’ at all, or was it more like doing graduate study abroad?!

To Leith, Hawke’s Bay is a winemaker’s nirvana. Here the conditions are excellent, and the Bay’s varied soils and micro-climates allow for a wide spectrum of varieties to be produced with consistently exceptional quality.

He originally became interested in winemaking when his father started planting grapes on the family’s Takapau farm, “first as a hobby, then as more than a hobby.”

He says winemaking is “not an easy industry to work in … it’s not glamorous. It’s not what people from outside think it’s like, sitting back and tasting wine. It’s 12-14 hour days, seven days a week, covered in grapes from head to toe.” (OK, he burst my bubble!) A lot of young people leave the industry. But
for Leith the hard work has paid off quickly and now it’s a matter of “producing wines that gain the respect of other winemakers.”

Most winemakers at well-known wineries in the Bay are veterans in their positions for 10-15 years. Getting to that position requires not just sensitive taste, an extensive knowledge of wines and a track record of making exceptional ones, but also a strong work ethic and good management skills.

So, the question put to this brimming-with-enthusiasm young winemaker is: How much of the quality of a bottle of wine is determined before the grapes are picked, and how much is in the hands of the winemaker?

Leith gives 70% of the credit to the grapes and 30% to the winemaker, conceding that his Dad would give 90% to the grapes! As he puts it, “The wine is made on the grape vine. The job of the winemaker is to enhance the natural flavours by treating the grapes in the right way … You can’t turn a bad grape into a good wine, but it’s pretty easy to turn a good grape into a bad wine!”

Tom Belford

Two decades ago a black teenager in London was murdered by a group of white kids. The police investigation was so poorly handled that a Royal Commission investigation led by Sir William Macpherson concluded that the Metropolitan Police was “institutionally racist”.

The fallout from the Stephen Lawrence murder and its investigation sent a shockwave of response through the Metropolitan Police Service. Issues in the Met had bubbled for decades, then a sudden impact forced change and the Service undertook a determined and systematic process of compulsory professional development for all 50,000 staff, unpicking inbuilt prejudices and deep-set perceptions of society and culture. It took acknowledgment of the problem, identification of the remedy, and a lot of in-your-face confrontational home-truths. It was a mammoth undertaking, but not an impossible one.

Institutional racism is “the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin”.

Anecdotally, statistically, and in massively general terms, our Mãori students are failing in our education system, or, reframed, the system is failing Mãori students. Which is it?

At the University of Waikato, Professor Russell Bishop (Tainui/NgatiAwa) is deconstructing underlying prejudice in education. His ten-year old Te Kotahitanga programme is viewed by many as a shining light in New Zealand’s education system. It is certainly creating a metamorphosis in teaching practices, witnessing huge successes in Mãori students and turning traditional classroom constructs on their heads.

Four Hawke’s Bay secondary schools have adopted Te Kotahitanga as an integral part of their professional development programme: Napier Boys’ High School, William Colenso College, Flaxmere College and Hastings Boys’ High School.

Te Kotahitanga asks teachers, and students, to rethink negative stereotyping of Mãori as learners, or more particularly as non-learners, who achieve less than their classmates. It challenges participants to put aside deficit thinking and become conscious enablers of success.

The expectation is that students who experience a more culturally responsive educational environment will be confident to continue with their learning, through to Year 13 and beyond.

Making culture count

The single, unifying principle is that teachers must do away with any negative theorising about a preordained lack of achievement from Mãori students, and instead adopt a position as an agent of success where they believe whole-heartedly in their students’ ability to achieve.

Te Kotahitanga positions the teacher – personally – as an agent of change rather than simply a facilitator of the status quo, and the students as active participants, even co-leaders in their own goal setting and accomplishment.

“Research started with talking to students, listening to them, developing an effective teaching profile. If you can get teachers to be culturally responsive, that makes a significant difference for Mãori students, and for all students,” says Principal of William Colenso College, Daniel Murfitt.

How that plays out in the classroom depends somewhat on the teacher and their students. Group work, roleplay and student-led discussions all feature. Classrooms become places where power is shared in a non-dominating way, where culture counts, and where success is helped along because of the cultural background of the student, not in spite of it.

The first step is for teachers to leave prejudice at the door.

“Removal of the deficit thinking that goes on, that’s quite a challenge. Society and certain people have ingrained deficit thinking. If you’ve still got that kind of thinking, you can’t make change,”
says Murfitt.

Deficit thinking can get in to the heads of not only teachers but students as well. The methods introduced through Te Kotahitanga see students becoming more engaged, and more enthusiastic about their own success and learning.

The programme has defined layers of professional development. Te Kotahitanga facilitators, working within the school, observe and analyse the methods each teacher uses in the classroom, then feed back to the teacher on potential improvements to their practice. Together, they then set goals and a path for achieving them.

All this means students are receiving an enriched, student-centric experience of school that celebrates their cultural differences, pushes them past what is the accepted norm, even past their own internalised racism, where they may see themselves as a failure even very early on in their education journey.

“It’s about understanding individual need better; adjusting things, even slightly; and having aspirational conversations with students,” believes Ross Brown, Principal at Napier Boys’ High School where 300, of a roll of 1200, identify as Mãori.

There are 75 staff at Napier Boys’, and all of them have been through the training, but in stages, so some are nearing completion while others have just begun. It is a resource-hungry programme; the school has four Te Kotahitanga facilitators.

“I can see the good in it. The good is in the quality and nature of professional discussions. Formally; but also informally, around the photocopier. We’ve now got a much richer discussion with our staff, thanks in part to this programme,” says Ross Brown.