This interview transcript has been edited for clarity and readability.
Aaron: Noel’s running for the Waikato constituency of the Waikato Regional Council. Previously he served as a Waikato District Councillor and is now a Waikato Regional Councillor. Just in case people need that clarification. But you’re running again – so tell us why you want to run.
Noel: So I am running for the Regional Council, having previously been a District Councillor. There’s lots to do, and a lot of challenges ahead. New legislation coming out of government, and of course the dreaded Plan Change 1 that the Regional Council started 12 years ago. That’s about to come out from the Environment Court, and it’s going to have a huge impact on our rural community and the waterways.
Aaron: Okay, let’s put off the Plan Change 1 discussion for a minute, but we’ll come back to it. First, since you’ve been there for three years now, can you tell us what you feel you’ve achieved during that time?
Noel: Well, I have an extensive background – 15 years in the District – so I knew the district really well. And it’s the same constituency for the Regional Council. As most people will recall, the Regional Council was quite disorganised, with a lot of friction between councillors. When I joined three years ago, it was divided at the start, but over time I was able to work right across the council.
One of the most significant achievements was during the Long-Term Plan. Staff recommended taking over bus rating for the Waikato region, taking the rating levy from District to Regional Council. When that came out, I strongly opposed it, because in Raglan some people would have been paying hundreds of dollars for public transport when previously they’d only paid $30–$50 through the District.
Thankfully, after raising it with the Raglan Community Board, councillors, the mayor, and a wide section of people, we managed to get a huge number of submissions into the Regional Council. As a result, the Council backed off and went through wider consultation. Over the last 12 months we’ve brought in a new regional rating system – and you’ll see this on your rates notices shortly – where most of our District will now pay only $30–$70 for their bus services.
I see that as a huge achievement, both on my part and for the community who stood up and said, “No, we can’t accept that.” That’s just one example of working for our community.
Aaron: So it wasn’t that you were opposed to control being handed over from the District and City Councils to the Regional Council – it was the costs that were going to come with that process?
Noel: Absolutely. Right throughout my 18 years as a councillor, I’ve always fought against unaffordable rate increases. It’s about making sure rates are affordable. There were synergies in moving it to the Regional Council, because the Regional Council had been charging $80–100,000 in administration fees to the District. By moving it in-house, those charges could be reduced.
But the issue was the cost to our ratepayers. Some people with $2 million properties would have been paying around $534, about half that for a $1 million property. But there were a few properties in the $5 million range that would have been paying over $2,000 for public transport – and to be honest, they probably wouldn’t even use the buses. The equity just wasn’t there.
So yes, I understood the efficiencies, but it was about making sure the costs were fair. That’s where the benefit came from having worked with the District and understanding its needs.
Aaron: When the public submissions came in, I noticed there were a lot from Raglan. I presume that was to do with the proposal for buses that were used like school buses – not just running into the central transport hub, but going directly to schools like St John’s College.
Noel: That’s more recent, Aaron.
The issue I was talking about was about 12 months ago. We’ve just brought the charges in – we’ve taken over from the district – and those charges will show up in the rates notice coming out next month.
The change in the Raglan bus routes for school kids, that’s a separate issue. Those buses were affected. Those buses used to leave Raglan and go directly on to the schools, and that change has affected families. Yes, that’s an interesting issue. [laughs]
Aaron: I presume there were a significant number of submissions about that. From what I saw yesterday, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the proposal is to hold on to the current system for a while – but only short term. Later on, it’s still expected to go back to the system the parents don’t want.
Noel: That’s my understanding as well. I’m not on the Public Transport Committee or the Regional Transport Committee, so I have little impact on that because those issues are debated at a region-wide level and then brought to Council. But the long and short of it is, the fewer times children have to change buses, the less that can go wrong. I’m sympathetic to that–I’ve had children who went into town on those buses when they went into town. I live at Te Kowhai and I understand how important it is to get our kids to school. So yes, it needs further debate, and it’s not always easy to balance everyone’s needs.
Aaron: Okay, so will there be a chance for people to have their say again when that change comes around, or is it locked in now?
Noel: My understanding is it’s short term at the moment, but it will come back for wider discussion–people like me will make sure it does. And while I’m not on those committees, I keep an eye on what’s happening and raise concerns. For example, Raglan was consulted on that most recent issue, but Whatawhata wasn’t, and we found out it was going to affect them. So I made it my business to ensure the community got the information they needed and were able to submit as well. I’m here to represent all issues our community has, not just the ones tied to the committees I sit on.
Aaron: In your candidate statement, you said you’ve spearheaded the re-establishment of the river and drainage committees, and that you chair the Lower Waikato Catchment Committee. For the uninitiated, what’s that all about?
Noel: Back in 1958 there was a massive flood that hit the entire Waikato–from Taupō through Rangiriri and beyond. Land was flooded, and the government put money into river and drainage schemes to protect and defend properties, the rail network, State Highway 1 through Rangiriri, and other key assets.
Those committees were disestablished about six years ago. Staff had recommended to the incoming council that they were too costly to run. What they overlooked was that these were targeted ratepayer committees–the community itself was paying for that work–so their voice was lost.
I’d previously chaired one of those landowner committees, and with like-minded people we said, that’s not good enough. It’s our money going into protecting our land and the community’s assets, so we need those committees back. We’ve since managed to re-establish one for the Lower Waikato and another for Hauraki. That’s proven to staff the benefit of having people at the table who have skin in the game. Now we’ve got community and councillor support to re-establish more of the old committees in the next term.
Aaron: So there used to be a committee out here, I think–it was for the coastal catchments? I can’t remember the exact name.
Noel: West Coast Catchment, absolutely. And that’s one of the catchments we want to see brought back.
Aaron: That would cover roughly–can you give us a vague idea of the area it would cover? I know it’s not planned yet.
Noel: Yes, well, it depends on what the community wants. But we are hearing from the West Coast that they’d like one back. At the moment, we’ve got a catchment committee operating independently of Council, covering from the north of Raglan Harbour right up to Port Waikato. That’s called the West Waikato Catchment. The one that isn’t operating is from Raglan south, towards Kāwhia Harbour and the like. That would be the West Coast committee. I think Councillor Thompson may have been on that one as well, representing the district.
Aaron: I think I’m actually interviewing someone after you who was on that a few years ago – Kristel, who runs the Karioi Project, getting pests off the mountain.
Noel: That project to support those lovely birds out there.
Aaron: Okay, so I’m just trying to understand, why are we talking about catchments? Are we talking about the flow of the water? Are we talking about water quality? What are we talking about with a catchment committee?
Noel Smith: A catchment committee’s main goals are to improve water quality and enhance biodiversity and biosecurity. That means planting in the right places, voluntarily retiring wetlands and fencing them off to protect them, because they’re the filters that cleanse the water. It’s about getting rid of pests, improving water quality through plantings, and retiring river or stream banks. But that’s got to be balanced with affordability. And then we bring up that dreaded word again–Plan Change 1 (PC1).
Aaron: All right, shall we go there then? Why are you calling it dreaded? So, Plan Change 1–when you say PC1, that’s Plan Change 1. Can you briefly tell us what it’s about? I know it’s complex.
Noel Smith: I’ve just tried to read the interim decision from the Environment Court–it’s over 300 pages, and it really hurt my head. So let me put a disclaimer in here. Twelve years ago, when the Regional Council first put this together and put it out for consultation, I made submissions opposing Plan Change 1. I think it’s fair to disclose that there are aspects of PC1 that I personally didn’t like and didn’t think were good for the environment. But the buck stops with the environment for me–we must do what we can to protect it.
Plan Change 1, to me, has the right intentions, but the way it’s been handled is the issue. I wasn’t a councillor when it was first put in, but hopefully I will be when the Court finally deals with the appeals and releases it. When I say “dreaded,” it’s because there are people who absolutely love what’s in there and are passionate about it, but others have given evidence that their ability to farm will be severely affected. Our commercial vegetable growers in the north, especially around the Franklin market gardens, and Pukekohe and the likes, are saying they’ll be uneconomic if all the provisions are implemented.
Commercial vegetable growing is new to me, and I’m digging in to try to understand the implications. There will be winners and losers–hopefully the environment is the winner in the end. But we’ve got to work through the Court’s ultimate decision. It hasn’t been released yet, but we have an idea from the interim decision that’s just come out.
Aaron: So just a bit of background about you. I think I remember this from three years ago when I did a candidate interview. You’re a farmer, and you’ve been doing riparian management–which I think is a part of Plan Change 1–on your farm voluntarily for a while, have you?
Noel Smith: Yeah, so with my wife’s family farm – we’ve had it for 108 years – when I married Betsy, I initiated a planting programme along the creek we farm on, which flows into the Waipā River. That was over 40 years ago. We fenced and double-fenced the river, planted along it, and fenced the streams. At the time, I probably did it for different reasons – mainly to stop stock from getting into the waterways, but over time I came to see the environmental as well as the financial benefits.
So, yes, I’m sympathetic to farmers with large properties, we’ve got 100 acres here, because it can be costly to fence off. But the reality is, it’s the right thing to do. From the interim judgment, I see the court is allowing up to 10 years for people to comply. But really, Plan Change 1 has been in discussion for 12 years already. So with another 10 to 20 years to get properties fenced or managed in a more environmentally sustainable way, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
Aaron: And my understanding is Plan Change 1 comes from legislation, so it can’t really be opposed or wiped away at the Regional Council level, right?
Noel Smith: Absolutely. My understanding is that the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 2010 was the genesis of Plan Change 1. When it was created, I don’t think the community was taken on the journey sufficiently. It only passed at Council on the chairperson’s casting vote, so it never had strong support and the community was divided.
Because it was a result from an Act of Parliament, it is the law. Once the Environment Court makes its final decision, Council has to accept that – it’s binding. The only way to change it after that would be through another plan change.
Just this morning I was talking with a constituent about it, and at a meeting last night in Pōkeno I said the same: we may need a Plan Change 2, or whatever form it takes, to address deficiencies in Plan Change 1. I’m open to working with like-minded people to look at how we can improve it, without compromising the environment.
Aaron: This is a topic I don’t know too much about. The only time I’ve really talked about it was with your predecessor, Fred Lichtwark – who people here know well for his work with Whaingaroa Harbour Care and riparian management. Three years ago, he told me that the required fencing distance from waterways was too short, that it wasn’t really worth doing in his words. Is that still the case? Are the fences still being put too close to the water to allow adequate planting?
Noel: It really depends on the perspective and what people are passionate about. Reading the decision, the arguments ranged from one metre up to 20 metres, and the Court seems to be settling in the interim decision on three metres. I actually went and looked at my own fences and thought, okay, that’s probably about two and a half metres – I’ll have to get the tape measure out. On the river here, my fence is about 20 metres back and triple planted with trees and the like. But on the creek, it was originally only about a metre. I shifted it to what I thought was three, but there’s been a little bit of erosion. I think we’re all going to have to think about it and make some pragmatic decisions about what we move and what we keep.
Aaron: So are there candidates – either in our constituency or others – who are heavily opposed to Plan Change One and want to chuck it out? I hope there’s no one claiming they actually can chuck it out.
Noel: I’ve been to a couple of candidates’ meetings now, and there are people saying they can chuck it out. Well, to actually chuck it out means a new plan change. Once the court makes a decision, you can only appeal it on a point of law, so it’s there and we’re stuck with it. If we want to change it, we have to use the law to make those changes.
Aaron: And by the sounds of it, to do it properly would mean a new plan change – like we have district plan changes and things like that. It would still have to follow the legislation.
Noel: That’s right, until changes are made. We’ve already had 12 years to get to this stage and still don’t have a final decision. When it does come out, it’s going to stay with us, and not everyone will be happy. Some people are saying it will make them lose their farming ability. Others say farmers have managed to adapt.
As I told you three years ago, my background–as a police officer, a court registrar, a JP–has always been in positions where I’ve had to comply with the law. To me, and as an RMA Commissioner, once these decisions are made we have to abide by them until we can make changes through the proper process.
So those claiming they can throw it out as soon as they get into council will find the law prevents them.
Aaron: Do you think there’ll be people ignoring the law on this? Ten years down the track, does Council have to go around inspecting properties? How does that work?
Noel: I’d hope we don’t get to the “big stick” stage. I’d rather see Council–and I think the councillors I’m working with now feel the same–focus on education process and working alongside farmers, landowners, vegetable growers, and others to find solutions that are workable. Ultimately, if after 22 years the Council of the day decides it’s time to use the big stick, then yes, that could happen. But hopefully we don’t reach that point.
Aaron: Okay, let’s talk about something else. I’m actually frustrated with this next discussion. There’s been a big media campaign to make sure rates are part of this election, but there’s no nuance – it’s just “rates are too high.” That’s the only part of the discussion. You’re not part of the rates control group, I don’t think?
Noel Smith: No, I’m not. And look, I have been approached by the Rates Control group, but I absolutely maintain my independence. I look at the merits of each issue and go from there. Rates Control’s goal is admirable – keeping rates within inflation – and as I said earlier, this is my seventh time standing for council, and I’ve always put in my pamphlets that I’ll ensure rate increases are affordable. That’s critical to me.
We’re going through tough times, but we’ve been through tough times before. Council can’t just keep putting the boot in and pushing rates up. If you look at what the Regional Council’s actually done this year, we included the new regional bus rating, which added about 2.5% to the rate. So our average increase was around 5.7 or 5.8%. If you take out the bus transfer – which you could call cost neutral, since it moved from district to region – then Regional Council rates would have been closer to 3–3.5%. That’s within the realms of current inflation.
But that’s the average. I know my own rates bill went up 15%. That’s mainly because of the new primary industries compliance rate, which used to be called the permitted activity rate. It’s gone from $75 to $300, and it’s going up to $400 next year – something I strongly opposed. Farmers are being hammered, and it’s not just dairy, it’s everyone from vegetable growers to pastoral farmers. So it’s easy to say these are averages, but again, there are winners and losers.
For me, affordability is absolutely key. That’s why I’ve kept my independence. Rates Control has asked me if I’d support them on certain issues, and I’ve said, look, we might have common ground, but I don’t want to be dictated to by a group on how to vote. I want to represent the community directly.
Aaron: Okay, so you talk about inflation. I know that the cost of creating or building infrastructure – and I don’t know if this applies so much to the Regional as the District Council – but the inflation within the construction industry is much higher than CPI. Should we be taking that into consideration?
Noel: Yeah, and that’s one of the issues. The Regional Council and other councils don’t buy vegetables, butter, milk, or cheese – we buy concrete, metal, pumps, floodgates, and those sorts of things. It’s called the construction cost index.
For example, at Churchill East, near Rangiriri, we replaced 50–70-year-old flood pumps. It cost $6.5 million. Those pumps came from Europe because we can’t build that size here – they were eight metres long and about four metres in diameter, two of them, shipped in. These are things we can’t source locally, so I’m working with staff to see if we can get a New Zealand manufacturer, with research and development funding, to build them here. That way we’d have resilience if something goes wrong overseas.
But you’re right, those costs inflate faster than CPI. So the question is, should we measure against CPI, or should we look at the actual costs councils face?
Aaron: I want to squeeze in one more question before we go. A lot of these issues we’ve been talking about end up sounding like farmer versus environmentalist arguments. I’m wondering if this translates onto the council itself. I know there was a split, and in fact the chairperson had their name pulled from a hat because of it. Is there an unworkable split on the Regional Council at the moment? Is everything dividing down that line?
Noel Smith: That’s a really good question, Aaron. I’ve worked incredibly hard because of that seven–seven split at the start. I was offered chances to cross the floor and join one side, but I rose above that and said, I’ll vote on the merits of the issue. What I’ve found now is that people come to me because of my experience, asking questions and working across the two factions.
It’s actually very rare now that we need a chairperson’s casting vote, although it did happen recently when Council voted on whether to leave Local Government New Zealand. The chairperson used the casting vote to stay. We could have saved a couple hundred thousand dollars in rates, and I don’t think we need to be in that organisation.
So yes, the divide is still there, but it’s been worked through by those of us willing to talk and find solutions. That’s what I want to do – whatever the community delivers, I’ll be able to work across the divide.
Aaron: Okay, good to talk to you this morning. Are we going to see you out here on the 14th of September for our Meet the Candidates in Raglan?
Noel Smith: Absolutely – it’s in the diary, and I’ll be there.