Wagner Nicky: Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 03 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I move That the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill be now read a third time. I am delighted to be here today to present this Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill at its third reading. There has been quite a lot of controversy around this bill but basically it is very simple it is very straightforward it is very short and it is very focused. What this bill does is set out to validate rates irregularities that came to light to the Christchurch City Council just last year.Let us give you a little bit of context. Each June the Christchurch City Council—and in actual fact councils across the country—resolve to set their rates for the next financial year and since 2004 the wording for that rates resolution has been the same or similar. But in 2013 the Department of Internal Affairs informed the Christchurch City Council that the resolution did not meet the requirements of the Local Government (Rating Act) of 2002. So let me get that straight—for 9 years it had been using the same resolution and for 9 years unbeknown to everybody that rates resolution had been faulty.The problem all began back in 2004 when the council deliberately set out to simplify and to use everyday language in setting its rates resolution. But inadvertently it left out important bits of information—important requirements—which meant that that resolution was invalid. Under section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act it requires that a rating resolution must include the date on which the rate must be paid and if that rate is to be paid in instalments it must include the amount and the date of each instalment. Section 57 which authorises additional penalties requires that the resolution also states when the rates must be paid and the due date and the resolution must also state how the penalties are calculated and the date on which those penalties must be paid. In this case the Christchurch City Council’s resolution did none of that but let me make it clear: all the required information was available. It was all available in the council’s rating policy and in the funding impact statement. It was discussed at the council table. It was aired in the local newspaper. It just was not in the resolution. So the attempt to simplify had basically backfired and although nobody had noticed and it had gone on for 9 years finally in 2013 it had to be repaired.I must give credit to the temporary chief executive officer of the Christchurch City Councilat that time Jane Parfitt because immediately the council was able to correct the 2013-14 rates resolution and then it went back to review all its other past resolutions. They managed to identify a number of other technical irregularities. They found errors in the setting of seven targeted rates and also in the setting of the uniform annual general charge. It was the same problem. Although the background information was readily available it was not in that resolution so all those resolutions were irregular. As I have said they were able to fix those resolutions going forward but there was no ability for them to fix the resolutions going back hence this bill.I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members again who thoroughly canvassed the background to this bill and worked their way through their process. I would particularly like to thank the leadership of Scott Simpson as the chair. The debate has gone on because nobody in Parliament ever likes to pass retrospective legislation. We have done it several times in the last few years and it is unfortunate that this bill has had to come to the House. Fortunately this bill is very much about technical errors. Nobody has lost anything. There has been no fraud and no suspicious behaviour—just the problem with the simplification of the language where the council thought it was doing a good thing which has backfired. I commend this bill to the House.