Blumsky Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Local Government Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:632;Page:3826] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I am sure that—picking up the comments of the Minister of Local Government—we will have a very interesting debate in caucus. As he talked I reflected on what I would have done. Would I have voted for this rates rebate scheme in its current form? If the Working for Families package had been put forward at the same time I would not have voted for the rates rebate. I suggest that the Minister is putting even more people on to a benefit. 
I take this opportunity to quote from one of the papers the Local Government and Environment Committee received. The departmental report to the select committee included a very clever little comment from officials: “It has also been noted by the Office for Senior Citizens that many elderly citizens feel comfortable making applications at their local council for the Rates Rebate Scheme but would feel somewhat alienated if the Scheme were perceived as income support that they had to apply for at a government office.” That tells me that if the Minister puts this provision through his Government agencies the elderly—of whom this provision will capture many—will perceive it as income support and will not like it and that is a concern. 
The main thing I do not like about this measure going through the House is the cost to local government. A number of city councils made a point during the submission process of saying that they had concerns about the cost of administering the extended rates rebate scheme—in particular the Auckland City Council the Waitaki District Council and the Manukau City Council. I thought I would pick up a point from the Auckland City Council submission as to why it has concerns about the implications and impacts of the Minister’s rates rebate scheme. I quote: “A review of the 2001 census data indicates Auckland City may be required to process around 20000 rate rebate applications annually.” So 20000 applications will have to be processed by the Auckland City Council which currently processes 250. I suggest that it will be an incredible imposition on the workforce at the Auckland City Council who currently work on the rates rebate scheme. The submission also states: “It is likely that these costs will not be able to be absorbed at present staffing levels and will require additional resources.” That will come at a cost and the council has figured out that the increased cost to its ratepayers will be up to $160000. It continues: “We are disappointed by the fact that yet another Government bill is putting imposition and cost on to the ratepayer.” 
Another very interesting point came through in the submissions to the select committee. A number of councils now send out a separate bill for water and waste-water services amongst other things and of course they will not be captured by the rates bill. Those councils were concerned that there needs to be a look at what is captured by the rates rebate scheme. The Government has requested further policy work on this issue and it will be reported back in 2007. 
Finally the other issue that came up at the select committee concerned superannuitants who live in a retirement village. A number of submissions talked about the fact that because of the structure of the retirement homes that some superannuitants live in and the way their living arrangements are worked out—that is they have a licence to occupy—they are not officially classed as ratepayers. I suggest there is an anomaly there. Those people have made that investment and have very little income and no doubt the costs of rates come through in the annual charges attached to the licence. We note those issues in relation to superannuitants and their retirement village arrangements. I hear that the Government through the select committee has noted that issue and again the officials have been asked to report back on the matter. I look forward to being on the select committee when that information comes forward.