Wagner Nicky: Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 06 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3282. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):I too rise to speak on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill at the Committee of the whole House stage. If anyone has been following this debate over the last few weeks they will understand that nobody likes to talk about retrospective or validation legislation. There have been a few bills in this Parliament over the last couple of years that have fallen into these categories and Parliament has struggled. We prefer things to be correct; we do not like to have to go back and clean them up afterwards. However it is acknowledged in this case that a validation bill is the most practical the most cost-effective and the best way to address these historic rating irregularities of the Christchurch City Council.The bill seeks to validate rates irregularities going back to 2003-04 right through to 2012-13. It all began after the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 was passed. The council deliberately sought to simplify its resolution for setting rates and paying penalties for unpaid rates. I think that was a positive desire. I think we are all aware of the need for plain language in local government legislation. These new simplified resolutions were used successfully until the rules were found in 2012 to be technically inadequate. Now the council at that time was able to correct the 2013-14 rates demands but at that stage the rating resolutions had been out of order for 10 years.When the error in the rates setting was discovered by the Department of Internal Affairs in 2013 the council treated it really seriously. It was shocked that defective resolutions had been accepted by the department for 10 years without any concerns and that the council’s auditors had never commented on them. So the council commissioned a legal review councillors were briefed and as soon as possible the information was collected and analysed. It held the council meetings open to the public and the minutes were available so it was a very open process. As I have already said at that stage the council was able to correct its 2013-14 rates resolution and it has now changed the process so that every year compliance is verified by legal and audit requirements. The council is apologetic. It takes full responsibility for the errors prior to 2013. Its desire to further this bill demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. There is a major legal risk for the council if the errors are not validated.The council has always been very open with the public about the errors and open about the steps that it has taken to rectify them and actually the public have been largely accepting of the situation. No approaches were made to the council during the notification period of the bill and no submissions were made by the public to the select committee. But let me make it clear that in terms of the irregularities of the rates resolutions all the required rating information—the rating years the dates for the rates instalments the penalties the calculations the dates for the payments—was available to the public. It just was not stated in the rates resolutions. Let me also make it clear that no ratepayers have been disadvantaged by this resolution. In fact nobody noticed the error for over a decade.So it was an error yes and of course we need our local councils to be accurate with information and to write resolutions correctly but it was a victimless crime. I note that once notified the council took immediate action to rectify the situation but I also note that over the decade in question the personnel in the council had mostly changed so the new council staff have had to take on the responsibility of fixing the past resolutions and of preparing this bill. I thank them for that. I particularly thank—Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Seeking your advice again it has just been pointed out to us that the Minister during this Committee stage is giving her first reading speech word for word. Is that appropriate?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No that is not a point of order.Hon NICKY WAGNER: May I just complete my discourse. I would like to thank the council staff—the staff who have been new to the council in the last 10 years—particularly Jane Parfitt who was the acting chief executive officer at the time. It is not nice to have to take responsibility for other people’s errors and clean up after them especially on top of all the other work that the Christchurch City Council is doing in terms of rebuilding our city.So I support this bill. It is the easiest the most cost efficient and the practical way to correct past irregularities and to ensure that the Christchurch City Council’s resolutions now comply. Thank you.