My plan

One of my campaign pledges is to change the culture of the South Wairarapa District Council.

At the recent Business Wairarapa summit, one of the guest speakers – Nigel Latta – quoted the often-used (and misattributed to Peter Drucker) “culture eats strategy for breakfast”.  I am a firm believer that culture is a basic building-block of success in any organisation. It’s a fundamental way of getting people invested in delivering the strategic outcomes of the organisation - but obviously a strong strategy is also critical.

In my experience, culture begins at the top of any organisation. It doesn’t matter how great your strategy, if the governance group don’t “walk the talk” then your culture-change mission will fail and you won’t deliver your strategy.

Rather than attacking the Council staff and promising to slash jobs and find the cheapest contracts available, candidates - and then those who are actually elected to the incoming Council - first need to pledge to examine their own values and behaviour. That’s the only way they will lead real and enduring change.

I’ve been involved in significant culture changes in organisations and have seen the importance of having everybody engaged. Though modelling behaviour change at the top is a basic prerequisite, the best way to get buy-in to change is to involve all staff in the “what” and the “how”.  By the way, this is not necessarily a huge, expensive exercise with highly paid consultants! Importantly, I’ve found that it’s worth time at the beginning to get it right.

I suspect that most South Wairarapa residents would probably say that they want a council that is responsive, transparent, collaborative, efficient and providing value for money.  Staff, too, may regard those attributes as important. I assume they’d also like the Council to be a worthwhile place to work, where their contribution is valued and they can have a positive influence. None of these are in conflict. In fact, in an organisation with a positive culture they will be mutually reinforcing.

In my career I’ve been privileged to work with groups in both commercial and non-commercial organisations who wholeheartedly wanted to change the culture – this certainly makes it easier to achieve. But I know from experience that culture change takes time to get bedded in. And a word of warning: McKinsey research shows that only one third of organisational change efforts are considered successful by leaders.

Obviously, a lot can go wrong, which means that the leadership of the group (in this case the Mayor and elected Councillors) need to remain vigilant regarding their own behaviours.  If they aren’t working together, aren’t positive, creative, outward looking and don’t have a “can do” attitude, the rest of the organisation won’t function in an optimal way.

Local government around the whole country is under enormous stress at present. Some is of its own making, with deferred infrastructure (as in South Wairarapa) now needing urgent attention. In these circumstances the culture of the Council is critical in enabling it to respond creatively to pressure.

In terms of culture change, what does success look like? Obviously, there are internal measurements but, overall, a positive culture is normally reflected in increasingly positive results of both staff and customer (i.e. resident) surveys or sometimes (as I have experienced) in outside recognition.

However, depending on the strategy and the type of organisation, there are other important variables to measure. In the case of the South Wairarapa Council, an issue such as timeliness would probably feature big on the wish list of many residents.

The most difficult strategic issue the new Council will have is balancing responsible fiscal management with the delivery of services and infrastructure – as well as maintaining clarity and openness in explaining how they are proceeding and how these issues impact on each other. The Council’s culture will be a big determinant of success in this area. 

Council rates are a big topic in South Wairarapa – as in many other council areas in Aotearoa. Late last year a group from Martinborough presented the Council with a petition calling for a cap of 3% on future rates increases. This is a serious request, so should be examined to see if it is workable.

I am not sure where the 3% came from. One issue when looking at council spending is that, as well as items such as staff costs, local government is spending on areas such as road and bridge building, where the inputs such as steel, concrete and bitumen have higher rates of inflation than household items. The Local Government Cost Index, as defined by the Auditor General, also includes the transport capital expenditure index, the “three waters” capital expenditure index as well as general goods and services and thus tends to be higher than the CPI.

Recently, I was asked by the Wairarapa Times Age what I considered to be an acceptable rates increase. My answer was that there is no single number that is “acceptable”.

In South Wairarapa our problem is that the Council kept rates arbitrarily low for many years and now history is catching up. High rates increases in the last couple of years (i.e. top 12 – 13% of councils), were very challenging for many. However, the problem is that the district also urgently needs the deferred infrastructure that is finally being planned.

Additional rates income required by SWDC in the current year is 4.3% - lower than the NZ average 8.3% - but it will impact on different properties in different ways.

I do not believe that arbitrary rates capping is an effective tool. And certainly 3% would mean not just further delays in infrastructure upgrades but other cuts in services, so the petition organisers need to say in detail what they would cut. It is not necessarily impossible, but it needs to be explained.

Evidence from Australia is that rates capping hasn’t worked. In particular, it had a negative impact on local economic growth and councils’ ability to invest, causing infrastructure backlogs and degraded services, as well as diminishing the “local voice”.

Last year the current council reviewed its rates formula and introduced some changes, which took effect on July 1 this year.  After the forthcoming election we will have at least seven new people out of a total of eleven on the South Wairarapa District Council. I suspect they will all have views on the model, so we should have a look at it to see how it is working and whether it can be tweaked/managed to produce a fairer model – though of course when it comes to rates, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder – i.e. the individual ratepayer!

In talking about rates affordability, it’s also critical to consider if and how the Council provides value for money.

As Mayor, my six-point programme to deliver value for money for residents is:

1. Greater citizen involvement to decide priorities.

We have amazing knowledge and experience amongst our South Wairarapa residents – why don’t we use it?

2. Initiating a culture change in the Council – both elected members and staff. There should be a common-sense and “can do” attitude, with Council’s role being to underpin the prosperity and social cohesion of the district, not to be a blockage. This requires greater transparency and timely decision-making.

In my experience, culture starts at the top. It’s not about writing a list and pinning it on the wall. It’s about how you behave. Elected leadership needs to model the culture (see “Council culture” on this page).

3. Line by line review of all spending to see where savings can be made, with focus on creating efficiencies. This applies across the board, including planned infrastructure.

This speaks for itself – it does not mean a wholesale slashing of services but rather a keen look to see what might be done more efficiently or, potentially, in collaboration with another agency (public or private).

It’s also useful for organsations that serve the public – and which use the public’s money - to periodically review their direction of travel in terms of big projects. In New Zealand planning, consenting and constructing infrastructure is a very long-term process. It’s important that old infrastructure is not simply replaced with more of the same, without examining whether there are other newer and potentially more cost-effective technologies available.

4. Property and asset rationalisation.

Reviewing assets should be a regular job for any Council, regardless of the size of its portfolio.

5. Investigation of other forms of revenue and exploration of shared services and partnerships with other councils and organisations to share costs.

Many other NZ councils have a wide range of revenue options. We don’t have a huge portfolio of inner-city commercial rental property or thousands of parking meters, so revenue opportunities are more limited than they are for some councils.

However, working with other councils makes absolute sense. This is already happening in a number of areas but should be explored as an option for all services.

6. Importantly, working with the private sector, iwi and others to drive economic growth and create more and better paid jobs. This benefits everybody, including ratepayers.

This is critical – nothing trumps economic growth for helping out with rates increases (see ‘Economic Development’ on this page).

All the above urgently requires strong leadership and experience in managing complex organisations with mixed mandates.

South Wairarapa is at a pivotal point. To maintain financial viability and avoid negative central government intervention we need to be proactive and capable. In this respect, the Mayor is not just the Council Chair, looking inwards. They are the community leader who must have the ability to bring together disparate groups and individuals to ensure the community thrives. They must also be able to work with central government to reduce barriers from government actions and their unintended consequences on the local community.

Amidst all the public discussion in South Wairarapa about council rates, some people seem to be overlooking the need to grow the local economy by attracting more investment and more high value jobs.

This will primarily be driven by the private sector but there is a significant role for leaders such as the Mayor – using their networks (both local and national) and working with business and local people who have ideas. I’m already doing this in South Wairarapa, using my knowledge and networks to help our  businesses – but there’s so much more to be done as Mayor!

 There is also a modest role for the Council through assisting with economic development initiatives, but the present situation is very fragmented and needs to be sorted out.

At present there are a host of agencies, organisations, steering groups, trusts etc  jostling in this place in a very uncoordinated way. They are responsible for a myriad of activities (e.g. business growth and workforce development) and delivery using a sector lens (such as water, food, fibre, transport and tourism - the latter includes wine and food, land-based, and cultural).

A great example of the problem of fragmentation and lack of focussed support is demonstrated in the situation of one of Wairarapa’s most recent attractions – our Dark Sky Reserve. Its potential is enormous, because it addresses the ambition of all tourism attractions – keeping people here for at least one night. One night’s stay (or usually more because you can never tell how the weather will be) means visitors need paid accommodation, more food and beverages and potentially other attractions. But Dark Sky - which is now officially internationally recognised - is serviced by one part-time person,  a steering group, a trust and a handful of operators who probably could do with more singular focus.

The fact is that the Dark Sky Reserve is potentially our most effective visitor attraction. The reserve in Tekapo now has the problem of attracting too many visitors - what a great problem to have! But in the plethora of economic development organisations here, it is an orphan.

If you were talking about a virtual economic development family, you’d say there are other orphans as well. There are siblings who never talk to one another. And then there are gaps where there should be another family member but there’s not.

How can we create a family around economic development? The answer is not difficult.

We need one Wairarapa Economic Development Agency (EDA) that is run right here in Wairarapa and brings together all the related services. This would include the current activities of Business Wairarapa (the regional Chamber of Commerce), Destination Wairarapa (the tourism promotion organisation – disclaimer: I am on this board) and various activities currently delivered by WellingtonNZ, funded through our rates to the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC).

This would essentially be a one-stop-shop for business in Wairarapa – services such as training, business development, networking, tourism promotion both domestically and internationally, as well as work with a sector focus (e.g. food and fibre) and looking at the issues such as (but not limited to) water capture and industrial land.

There would be two other key roles which currently don’t exist:

1. In the tourism area we need real focus on what is called in the jargon “product development” - that is, helping potential tourist attractions to develop, using the full range of interventions, some currently available and some not  from existing agencies.

2. The new agency would also look outwards, promoting Wairarapa as a compelling place to do business and attracting investment (private and public).

An agency of this nature would need to cover the entire Wairarapa – not just South Wairarapa. Businesses and tourists tend not to bother too much about council boundaries (except if there is a regulatory or culture issue for business). But obviously for us here in the south it would be an exciting development because we do need more jobs and investment here – and we also have much of the region’s tourism product, so better development would be enormously helpful for us.

The Boards of Business Wairarapa and Destination Wairarapa have already taken a proposal along these lines to all three councils and hopefully after the election we can get cracking on making this change.

Several years ago, the three councils commissioned a report on the delivery of economic development, which recommended this model, but was never actioned. Instead, we currently have that host of different governance/management groups, many of which have interests that could be mutually supporting, but all currently act independently.

Ironically - and positively! - we also have a Wairarapa Economic Development Policy (and an action plan) developed in 2018. This is not serendipity – there are other areas where reports and strategies have been developed but never delivered, a reflection of a lack of timely decision-making. It’s time to take both these papers off the table and breathe life into them.

The big issues are cost and who pays? My view is that initially it would cost no more than all our current activities. The early wins would come from having all these activities under the same roof - the family united and working together. Current funding from all councils including GW, would continue, and the private sector would be able to contribute to specific campaigns aligned with their business interests, as is common practice in New Zealand. My contention is that a focussed and integrated approach such as this would also better position us to attract funding from central government.

We just need the political will to do this.

The biggest public issues in South Wairarapa for this election seem to be the soaring rates and the infrastructure deficit. Obviously the cost of fixing the latter is driving the former.

Some infrastructure is provided by central government, some by the private sector and some by local government, for which it is by far the biggest role.

Infrastructure includes not just water and wastewater, but stormwater systems, roads, bridges, rail, the electricity grid/generators, the wi-fi network, waste management provisions and any other physical structures and facilities that the community needs to function.

Many years of neglect of water infrastructure in South Wairarapa has led us to today’s parlous situation. It absolutely needs to be fixed and will cost money. Our present council has sensibly decided to go into a joint Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) in conjunction with the other Wairarapa councils to deliver water and wastewater infrastructure in future. The CCO will continue to be owned by the councils, so this is not privatisation.

This doesn’t mean that residents will stop paying for the remedial action that is required. Instead of paying through rates to the Council, residents will pay to the CCO through volumetric charging – that is, water meters that measure how much you use.

The CCO will also be in charge of the wastewater infrastructure (for example sewage treatment ponds) and residents will be charged for that as well.

Obviously, I do not have all the facts of the current situation regarding water infrastructure in South Wairarapa. But as Mayor I will examine in detail the decisions made about future infrastructure types. We must definitely not be at the “bleeding edge” but there are already in the market other ways of managing wastewater, in particular. I have been having conversations with a number of people (not just in Wairarapa) who have expertise in this area.

This especially applies to the proposed Featherston situation which currently awaits a set of commissioners making a decision on a resource consent application from SWDC. The Council is seeking a consent for only ten years. It will cost a minimum of $17m and the question I will want answered is whether or not it will give the results we need in terms of technical, environmental and cost outcomes.

I’m really looking forward to the post-election period when we can have a good look at these issues prior to the CCO entity taking over. I understand that the CCO will be set up before July 1 next year but will not be taking over the entire system until 1 July, 2027.

This gives us time to ensure we’re always using the most environmentally appropriate and cost-effective solutions, providing value for money in the longer term.

Roads are the other big cost for the Council – second after water. The state highways are funded by central government but local roads by the council, with central government subsidies.

Unfortunately, the costs are ridiculously high. A 2024 analysis found that the cost of all local government infrastructure was rising massively and suddenly, with bridges (for example) costing 38% more over the previous three years.

In South Wairarapa we have nearly 700 kms of roads and 140 bridges and culverts, so this is another area where deep consultation with the community is critical. In this case, the rural community is particularly impacted and it’s important that they are engaged and know all the facts. An additional factor recently has been increasing numbers of logging trucks on rural roads not designed to carry frequent extra-heavy vehicles.

In our towns there are also roading issues – the Martinborough heavy traffic by-pass going past a school is an example, and the recent fatal accident involving a car and multi-bike also brought road issues into sharp focus. This is not just a question of reducing speed limits. It requires each town’s masterplan to be carefully conceived - with residents - to find an optimal design for what is some cases are very challenging legacy road networks.

Other infrastructure that is vital for our community and our economic future is not under the control of council. However, the Council can influence through its planning and its management of enquiries and consents.

In addition, the Mayor as the community leader should work with providers and welcome enhancements that will benefit our district. A good example is the provision of electricity (especially if it can be generated locally) and wi-fi.

Rail is the responsibility of Central Government and the Regional Council. This is familiar territory for me and I’ll be working closely with those in Wellington who are responsible, to fix our rail infrastructure and services. We can’t wait for the new rolling stock in three or four years’ time for things to improve.

Actually, there is so much that I could write about infrastructure that I can’t get it all into a short piece – but what I can say is that it will be a major focus for me as Mayor.

I welcome ideas from those who work in this area or have proposals for enhancement of any of our infrastructure.

Tourism is a key economic sector for South Wairarapa. Our wine and food offerings are internationally-acclaimed.  They are part of a wider offering that focusses in particular on our land-based attractions, such as cycling, walking, farm stays and coastal activities, including fishing and surfing.  And, of course, general sightseeing, from the Tararua Range to the beaches.

A big attraction recently added is our International Dark Sky Reserve – a rare and premium designation that we should be using far more cleverly in our tourism sector.

I need to declare an interest – I am a member of the Board of Destination Wairarapa, which is charged with promoting Wairarapa as a destination for visitors.

Our biggest issue here is that there is no single point of responsibility for what in the tourism trade is called “product development”. That is, how do we develop businesses that will attract more visitors?

It’s important at the beginning to decide what sort of visitors we want. On the one hand are multiple coachloads of “day trippers”, who swarm in, visiting predesignated places (organised by the tour operator), and then leave without spending much money. In contrast, there are more thoughtful visitors who stay longer, especially for more than one night, and are willing to spend on premium experiences.  My vote goes to the latter – there is no contest that this is what we need if we are to have a high-performing sector that grows well-paid jobs. 

The other issue is domestic versus international tourism.  Domestic will always be a big base for us, with Wellington only an hour away and many Wellingtonians wanting to come here for a weekend break. However, evidence shows that it is international tourists (not all - but the ones we should target) who are likely to be more willing to spend the money we need to support those good jobs. That means we need to ensure we have the attractions they will want and that they are packaged in a compelling way.

The issue we have in our product development area is that currently it is no-one’s responsibility. Our economic development approach is fractured and includes a number of different organisations – not just in South Wairarapa but over the whole of Wairarapa and reaching into Wellington.

This also requires appropriate infrastructure - road, rail and more appropriate accommodation options. See the section on Economic Development and on Infrastructure for further thoughts on “getting our act together” so tourism works for us.

During the Mayoral campaign the quality and quantity of Council consultation has been raised with me by many residents. In this respect, I know that South Wairarapa is not very different from many other councils in the country – this is a widespread issue where there is vast room for improvement.

South Wairarapa is currently facing what many other councils and governments are facing around the world - what has been described as the “participation conundrum”.

Citizen involvement is critical, but meaningful engagement is challenging, especially when trying to ensure that the processes are truly representative or that public input is well informed.

Some groups can be excluded (or feel they are excluded) from decision-making whilst others (often seen as having money and/or influence) are alleged to have too much say. Also, changes in technology have opened the door to hate speech and degraded information.

Our local government legislation prescribes that councils must consult on various issues. Generally, that means that the councils do advertising and mailouts to residents, sometimes accompanied by “drop-in” sessions where elected representatives and paid staff are present at different spots round the district for conversations with the public.

But after all that, it doesn’t seem to be working.  A small council such as South Wairarapa should be really close to residents. It’s not like running a huge city with millions or even hundreds of thousands of residents. The old New Zealand saying of “two degrees of separation” applies right here in South Wairarapa. Why then is the Council criticised for not getting its consultation right?

One significant issue that all small councils face is that their very size means they will not be able to afford a big pool of deep experts to give advice.  But here in South Wairarapa we are blessed with many “deep experts” in our population – people who have run complex organisations or who have “been on the receiving end” of ill-devised policies or who have incredible technical expertise.

During the campaign I’ve been asking people if they are prepared to help the Council and virtually without exception the answer is yes – but (they say) they are never asked. I’m not talking about paying big bucks to hire locals to give advice.  Rather, the concept of informal groups that could toss round a challenging issue in its very early stages – before a staff member even starts to write a report – and then give the Council some wise, informed advice as to options.

Another way of doing this is being seen in many examples internationally – and now even in New Zealand close to home in Porirua.  It goes by different names such as “participatory democracy”, “deliberative democracy”, “citizens juries” or “citizens assemblies”.

This is a much more structured approach where a group of people are selected from many volunteers to represent a wide range of views, then over a period of time (it could be many months on big gnarly issues) they meet, consider information they have been given, are able to quiz “experts” and discuss potential options.

 In some cases, the council involved has taken the resulting “answer” and delivered it in its totality. In other cases, they may change it a little. But in all reported cases the residents are much happier that all the options have been fully canvassed and the council is not just acting on a whim.

One of our other related issues in South Wairarapa is the long time it appears to take to get to a decision – or even no decision at all after (in some cases) years of reports etc. My reading of the success of some of the above examples shows that even if the deliberative process takes a while in order to come to a conclusion, because of the wide buy-in it appears to generate, it is arguably faster than a council not making a “too hard” decision for several years.

The OECD is urging governments to “catch the deliberative wave”. My view is that we should definitely be looking at it here in South Wairarapa, using greater citizen participation in a variety of ways.

Undoubtedly the biggest issue we are facing in terms of our recent exceptionally high rates increases is the delayed upgrade of water and wastewater infrastructure. 

This issue is the hardest one to write about for my website, firstly because it is so huge in terms of its impact on residents and, more importantly, because it’s difficult outside of council to know exactly what has been talked about as options to decrease the staggeringly high future water bills that are being predicted.

Average water charges for households are forecast to increase over the next decade from about $3000 to $6600 in inflated terms or $5170 in uninflated terms.

Recently the four Wairarapa Councils (SWDC, Carterton, Masterton and Tararua) voted to combine in future to create a single Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to deliver water, wastewater (sewage) and stormwater services. This was in response to the Government’s requirement that all council formally assess their water delivery.

The Wairarapa Water CCO – currently being called the Wairarapa Water Service Organisation (WSO) will be set up next year (2026) with some board appointments and is intended to be fully functional in 2027. At that stage it will take over full delivery and the Councils will no longer be the decision makers.

Prior to then, the councils involved must agree on many aspects of the WSO, and I have a number of questions about how much the incoming council will be able to make in the current agreement, in order to assess how to lessen the financial impact on residents. Obviously, the council must also explore options for decreasing other costs not related to water, but as this section of My Plan is focussing on water delivery, I’ll concentrate on that. See my section on Rates for other approaches.

When SWDC adopted the “Water Services Delivery Plan” on 20 August, the paper noted that “a more detailed review of the capital programme will be undertaken as part of the transition programme to determine whether some work can be rephased to later years, or reprioritised to further improve affordability for customers, without compromising critical required investment”. This “transition phase” is prior to the WSO taking over full responsibility so the new council after the election will need to focus on it urgently.

The paper goes on to note that the modelling underpinning the plan is based on existing investment programmes and that “in general terms the model takes a relatively conservative approach in its assumptions, which is appropriate given the need to demonstrate financial sustainability. This does result in a higher modelled price path than what may occur in practice”.

Phew! Good to hear – but how will it work?

The paper also notes that when the WSO takes over it “will have choices about how it manages the company which will influence the costs paid by customers.”  Examples given include changing the phrasing and priorities of the capital works programme, achieving efficiencies through bundling of works to better reflect a regional view of necessary investment, potential higher levels of efficiency and various other factors that might result in lower costs than were modelled.

Without being privy to Council inside information, it’s difficult to assess what the council had in mind when agreeing to these aspects of the plan. I hope they are real intentions and not just window dressing.

For example, in terms of the type of sewerage system we use in future, I’m keen to explore the use of other technologies – potentially more affordable, environmentally appropriate and future-proofed than the current treatment plants.

There are certainly existing technologies in use in New Zealand that are more environmentally friendly but the big question for us is affordability. Is there an alternative that is appropriate for the small population sites we have and that is financially manageable – in fact much more optimal than the current system? I know of some work being undertaken by local Wairarapa residents on this and as Mayor would welcome an expedited discussion.

I would also engage with our communities about whether water should be treated the same as other utilities such as electricity, gas or broadband – i.e. you pay for what you use. The current system provides a “free” allowance of 250,000 cubic metres of water per household (actually paid for by rates), with water use higher than that billed at a rate of $2.50 per cubic metre.

To my knowledge, in other places where total water metering has been introduced, the amount of water used plummets. This isn’t because people suddenly use massively less. It’s because they get their leaks fixed which means huge volumes saved and residents ultimately paying less for water than they had previously through their rates. This approach penalises big water users (i.e. swimming pool owners or those with big gardens/lawns watered in the dry season) and rewards those who are frugal with water – which of course is a fact of life for those who rely on water tanks!

This is the type of issue on which we need deep citizen engagement prior to coming to a decision (see my section on Public Consultation and Citizen Engagement). The challenge is that this would need to be done prior to the setting up the new WSO in 2027.

There are also issues around policies such as proactively encouraging subdivisions that are completely self-contained in terms of water and sewerage systems. I’m sure there are other ideas in the community and I’d be delighted to hear from residents about them.