The Government’s proposed rates cap could save the average ratepayer about $34 a year.
Speaking to Raglan Community Radio, Waikato District Mayor Aksel Bech acknowledged the pressure rising living costs were putting on households and said “every bit helps”.
But he questioned whether the relatively modest saving justified the scale of intervention involved.
“That’s a lot of change and legislative overreach, I think, to a large extent, for what is a very small amount of money,” he said.
Aksel said councils were being asked to spend less while communities also risked losing some ability to decide what services and outcomes they were prepared to pay for.
Council powers under scrutiny
The interview discussed the Taxpayers’ Union campaign to remove the Local Government Act’s power of general competence, which gives councils broad freedom to make their own decisions without needing Parliament to specifically authorise each activity.
Aksel stressed this was not Government policy, but said the wider direction of reform was narrowing what councils could do.
He pointed to Raglan’s Xtreme Zero Waste service as an example of local choice. While it costs more than a conventional waste collection model, the community has opted for a more comprehensive service that delivers greater waste diversion alongside social benefits such as employment and training opportunities.
He said communities should retain the ability to use targeted rates where they wanted a different or higher level of service.
Raglan’s move towards land-based disposal of treated wastewater was another example. Aksel said the higher environmental standard went beyond minimum legislative requirements because it reflected community expectations.
“That’s something we’ve taken on ourselves because that’s the outcome that our communities have wanted,” he said.
Three Waters expenditure is excluded from the proposed rates cap, and Aksel reassured the community that the remaining Raglan wastewater work will continue because it is already committed and required under consent conditions.
Millions spent on Plan Change 1 court proceedings
One question raised by the proposed unitary authority is how a much larger council would handle regional disputes such as Plan Change 1, which has pitted farming interests against environmental and Treaty obligations.
Waikato Regional Council’s Plan Change 1 has been in development for about 14 years, much of that time spent in Environment Court proceedings. Aksel said the regional council had reported spending around $30 million to $35 million on the process.
The Government has since paused the plan.
“Irrespective of the merits of either side of the argument, that’s a terrible, terrible way to do anything,” Aksel said.
He acknowledged strong support for the plan from Waikato-Tainui and the Waikato River Authority, alongside concerns about some of the methods used to measure environmental outcomes.
Aksel said he had not followed the technical detail closely enough to take a firm position on the dispute itself.
Compliance costs under scrutiny
Aksel said higher drinking-water standards introduced following the 2016 Havelock North campylobacter outbreak, which made thousands of people ill and prompted a national inquiry into drinking-water safety, were adding costs through tighter compliance requirements and the investment needed to meet those standards
He pointed to examples of small rural water supplies facing new compliance requirements, including community halls relying on roof water and schools having to regularly transport water samples for laboratory testing, adding costs without what he saw as a corresponding improvement in water quality.
“Nothing actually got better,” he said of some of those requirements. “No actual water quality was improved. It’s just all extra compliance.”
He said central government had added to council costs through regulation while also criticising councils for rising rates.
Water bill increase is not $1800
Those same higher standards, along with infrastructure investment, are also contributing to upward pressure on water charges.
Aksel also sought to clarify recent water charges after some Waikato District ratepayers interpreted their rates notices as showing an additional $1800 annual water bill.
The formation of IAWAI Flowing Waters has separated drinking water and wastewater charges more clearly from the general rate, with the jointly owned organisation eventually issuing those charges separately.
Aksel said households receiving both services had seen fixed charges rise by about $142, or around 6 percent, rather than $1800. Volumetric charges had also increased by about 6 percent.
He said joining with Hamilton City Council had reduced the increase Waikato District had previously forecast if it continued providing the services alone.
Water costs were still likely to rise because of infrastructure investment and higher environmental and drinking-water standards.
Raglan’s remaining wastewater work was expected to take about another two years. Aksel said the previous consent process spent years in the Environment Court, while extensive consultation helped the latest consent proceed without opposition.
Council mergers bring another major change
The Government’s Simplifying Local Government programme gave councils a 12-week Head Start period to develop amalgamation proposals.
Waikato District, Waipā and South Waikato submitted a Western Waikato proposal based around the Waikato River catchment from Lake Taupō to Port Waikato.
Government rules allowed them to include Hamilton and Taupō despite neither supporting the model.
“It seems at the heart of it somewhat anti-democratic, doesn’t it?” Aksel said.
But he said Waikato District faced a choice between putting forward its own proposal or leaving the Government to determine its future through the backstop process.
“Had the rules been different, different solutions might have emerged,” he said.
Neither Hamilton nor Taupō ultimately lodged a qualifying Head Start proposal and were therefore heading into the backstop process, Aksel said.
Councils that opted not to lodge Head Start proposals are now developing terms of engagement, memoranda of understanding and other arrangements, hoping to shape how they participate in the next stage of reform, despite the Government having made clear that councils which did not submit a proposal would be excluded from the Head Start process.
His preferred outcome remained a voluntary “coalition of the willing”, with communication between the councils continuing behind the scenes.
Aksel questions Taupō assessment
Aksel questioned whether Taupō councillors had been given a full opportunity to assess the Western Waikato proposal.
He said the model had been available before Taupō made its decision but was not among the options staff put forward for detailed consideration.
Taupō staff had said there was insufficient time to assess it. Aksel said the proposal had been available for several weeks, which he considered a reasonable period within a Head Start process that lasted only 12 weeks.
He rejected suggestions the proposal amounted to other councils taking over low-debt Taupō, saying it was intended to create a workable structure for services and whole-of-catchment management.
The compressed Head Start process had heightened concerns over who would hold power in a larger authority, with tensions coming to a head in the final hours before the deadline.
Rural councils feared domination by larger urban councils, while Hamilton was concerned surrounding rural districts could combine to outweigh the city.
“The governance structure is key,” Aksel said.
He pointed to Auckland as a cautionary example, saying powers could theoretically be delegated to local boards but too little had been devolved in practice.
He said the concept of subsidiarity, making decisions at the lowest practical level, could address concerns on both sides. Smaller rural communities could retain a meaningful say over local matters, while Hamilton could still control metropolitan issues within a larger Western Waikato authority.
Rather than treating Hamilton as a single homogeneous community, Aksel also pointed to differences between suburbs and said some decisions could also be made closer to those communities.
Making the case for Raglan town plan
During the interview, Aksel was taken through a series of issues that have developed without one overarching town or structure plan, including a future bypass route, industrial development, additional sports fields, proposals for a swimming pool and indoor sports facilities, parking and other community amenities.
He said Waikato 2070 had largely anticipated where Raglan’s residential growth would occur, but accepted that housing growth planning was different from bringing together decisions about facilities and amenities.
The possibility of amalgamation, he said, made having a clear record of local priorities more important.
If staff making decisions about Whāingaroa were eventually based elsewhere in a much larger authority, they would need a document that had “clearly captured the community’s own view of itself”.
Aksel said communities should retain the ability to choose the services and environmental outcomes they were prepared to pay for.
However, he questioned whether Government reforms were addressing the legal, regulatory and structural costs driving council spending, or simply placing tighter limits on local choice.
