Suzanne Williams

AS a Whakatane Action Group member, I must add my opinion to the attacks by Dave Stewart in the Beacon, which smack of “grandstanding”.

These are my views and do not necessarily represent those of WAG.  

I am woefully lacking in financial skills and will not comment on these matters, except to say that Mr Stewart’s assertion that “not laying out an alternative solution to the council programme has led us to face a $440,000,000 bill as the alternative to Three Waters legislation” is a rather strange conclusion to reach – cause and effect don’t seem to work there.  

Although I agree with his general comment that it is easy to be negative and offer no solutions, there have been many suggestions offered in the communications from WAG representatives printed in the Beacon.  

However, surely solutions are the province of our elected representatives on the council. Why should ratepayers have to come up with ways and means to run the council effectively? Don’t we have 11 elected councillors and an army of well-paid (some would say overpaid) and presumably qualified people at our disposal as a council, to ferret out ways of living within our means? The mantra seems to be “why bother, when we can borrow?”

WAG’s endorsement of the Prime Minister’s remarks at the Local Government New Zealand Conference simply related to the over-spending on the “nice-to-haves”, which has been going on everywhere, not only in Whakatāne.  

I must make it clear here that WAG has never held that some of the proposed spending of our rates is not very desirable; just that it is perhaps not necessary now, in this time of austerity and want. We have been told that our increase in rates will not even cover the necessary repairs and maintenance to our three-waters infrastructure without more borrowing; what an awful state of affairs.  

Mr Stewart’s dig at WAG members not wishing to applaud the returning Olympians and Paralympians: this has no relevance. Did they not do so well, using the existing facilities? and I, for one, was applauding their courage and achievements every day.

I can still remember a time at the close of the Great Depression and the beginning of World War II, when my parents, quite poor themselves, were giving work and a cuppa to the many out-of-work tramps living on the road;  not pretty. These times are long past, but despite our enlightened social welfare and (supposed) health reforms, things sometimes do not seem to have improved greatly – I guess, with the increase in incomes, so have our expectations risen, along with our reliance on the state as a provider. Those were also the days when we were taught to “live within our means”.

Yes, Mawera Karetai was treated rudely at one of our meetings; if she had not left early some of us would have apologised to her. However, WAG has an “open-door” policy; the man in question is not a member and has attended only two meetings. The chairman should have intervened, but not being perfect, was caught unawares, and the moment passed. I doubt that Ms Karetai, being the sensible person that she undoubtedly is, would have placed much importance on the incident.

WAG has never been “anti-council”, as such. We are pledged to (in my words): inform ourselves of local governance authority activities and inform and advocate for residents where necessary. In other words, keep a beady eye on what’s happening, and interfere, individually or as a group, when we think it appropriate or helpful for the community.

All residents/ratepayers, of course, can do this, but most don’t have the time, the inclination or are too lazy.  

However, there is a great opportunity coming up in the not-too distant future for us individually to make a difference  –  local body elections.  

Start thinking now, “who  do I know that I  would like to see representing me in the council?  Perhaps it is possible to get him or her standing for election, talking more sense than is happening now.”