Dave Stewart

The recent tsunami of criticism towards our local council has prompted calls for those making the loudest complaints to provide specific, actionable alternatives.

However, when the previous government's 3 Waters legislation was scrapped, the proposed $440 million alternative was revealed to be funded by ratepayers, without much public discussion beforehand.

This raises the question of whether voters would have made different choices if they had been fully informed.

Across Aotearoa, councils are facing significant rate increases as they are given more responsibilities by central Government without adequate funding.

While some in Whakatāne may blame local councillors, these pressures are being felt nationwide, not just in their community.

The 3 Waters issue is just the tip of the iceberg, as the National-led coalition Government has signalled plans to further centralize power and reduce councils' independence.

Their vision involves stripping councils of responsibilities beyond basic infrastructure and services, while implementing performance reviews, spending caps, and a greater "user pays" approach.

The Whakatane Action Group (WAG) has been vocal in criticising rate rises but has yet to offer concrete alternative solutions to the $440 million 3 Waters funding gap.

As the battle over local government powers intensifies, it will be important for them and other community groups to put forward their own visions and costings, rather than just reacting to the government's plans.

The National-led coalition's actions have been disastrous for ratepayers, and the 3 Waters debacle is just the tip of the iceberg. More pain is coming, and it's all bad news for Kiwis.

When National was last in power, they sold off our energy companies despite a 2013 Citizens Initiated Referendum that showed a 67 percent majority against the proposed asset sales. Then Prime Minister John Key said the Government would ignore the referendum results.

This winter, we've seen the true folly of National's asset sale ideology.

The energy companies, which both produce and sell energy, are keeping supply low to drive up prices and profits. As a result, many can no longer afford the energy we all used to own. Thanks, National.

Now, the government has scrapped 3 Waters within moments of forming. Here in Whakatāne, we're left with a $440m problem and no solution.

WAG has been vocal about the rates rises, but hasn’t offered a viable alternative beyond cutting other much-needed and justified spending to cover Government’s 3 Waters replacement.

And how do we, the ratepayers, pay for this? With borrowing.

The other alternatives are unclear. Asking WAG proved fruitless, as they were at that point posting memes cheering for "Team Luxon" after he berated local councils for "wasteful spending" at the local government conference SuperLocal 24.

This "wasteful spending" refers to projects the government had passed on to councils without providing adequate funding. It's akin to firing 7000 public servants and then harassing them for being unemployed - the fools may love it, but many others do not.

The National-led coalition government's plans for ratepayers are set to get much worse, as evidenced by the Q&A program on August 25 where Jack Tame held local government minister Simeon Brown accountable for the plans for mandates on council spending and local democracy.

In his address to SuperLocal 24, Mr Luxon made clear that his vision for the future of local government was deeply opposed to localism and local decision-making.

He announced his Government's intention to strip councils of power, reducing them to powerless entities responsible only for infrastructure and basic services. This was not something they campaigned on, as they kept it hidden from the public.

The plan is simple: Central government will seize more power from councils.

Mr Luxon announced his government's intention to restrict council independence and decision-making power by establishing performance reviews, introducing spending caps, and generally removing any ability for councils to do anything beyond providing basic infrastructure and services. The National-led coalition Government wants to treat councils like Crown agencies under its direct control, rather than as fellow elected politicians with a mandate from their communities.

This is a battle on two fronts: politics and power. Politically, each council will have its own ideas on how to spend money based on the desires of its constituents. These ideas won't always align with the governments.

Mr Luxon and Mr Brown are demonstrating a clear willingness to override the will of councils to push through their own agendas.

We have learned a lot from National's 3 Waters alternative - we now cannot fund our water needs. So, what are the other alternatives?

In a recent interview, Mr Brown revealed the Government's plans to remove the four wellbeing provisions from the Local Government Act. This means councils will no longer be responsible for the social, environmental, economic, and cultural wellbeing of their communities.

Instead, Mr Brown advocated for a "user pays" approach, stating that where a public good element exists, "rates is a way in which you can raise money" but "where you can directly charge for the use of a particular type of asset, we should be doing that."

This suggests the Government intends to privatise certain public assets and services, requiring citizens to pay directly to access them. Brown's comments indicate a shift away from councils holistically supporting community wellbeing, towards a model focused on user fees and private profit.

The response from WAG requires strong opposition to this agenda, which they must view as the Government "lining the pockets of its donor mates and lobbyist friends." They need to show they are concerned how this "user pays nonsense" will negatively impact their town and community.

WAG now has an opportunity to present its alternative vision - one that prioritises the public good and community wellbeing over privatisation and profit motives. Clearly defining this alternative approach and its costs will be crucial in the ongoing debate.