Table of Contents
Steve Gibson
Hastings district councillor
Hastings District Council’s own policy proves the point. The Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy is crystal clear. When a decision is significant, the public must be properly consulted and involved in the decision making process.
What counts as significant?
Financial impact on the whole district
Number of people affected
Level of public interest
Impact on strategic assets
Changes to services or control
Now ask yourself this:
- Creating a new water entity that can rate the public directly
- Transferring control away from elected councillors
- Appointing unelected representatives to governance
If that is not significant, what is? Their own policy says higher significance requires greater public participation, not less.
It also states decisions must be clearly explained: consider alternatives and allow meaningful input before decisions are made.
Yet the public was never asked the most important question: Who governs this new entity?
That is not a minor detail. That is the decision.
You cannot consult on structure, costs and outcomes while avoiding the governance question altogether. By their own policy, this should have triggered full, transparent engagement with the community. Instead, we got a process where the biggest decision was effectively made behind closed doors. That is not consultation. That is process failure.
Editor’s Note: This rebuttal is Steve’s response to this article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/hastings-councillor-threatens-legal-action-over-water-services-entity-plan/INVSN3GM5NDAPD7QRT2IJRE53Q/
