Sabin Mike: Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSabin Mike: Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14643. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I moveThat the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time. Can I firstly just acknowledge all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee from across this House—in particular the chair of the select committee Nicky Wagner—for the diligent work that has been done the very considered work that has been done on a matter that is very complex. It is wide and varied in terms of the nature and consequence of the matters that the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill contains. It has been the subject of much concern and comment from across the district. So I want first to acknowledge everyone on the committee for the way they have got their heads round that.No one is a fan of retrospective legislation least of all of course the MP who is required or is asked to sponsor that legislation. Having to retrospectively address failures of a council to follow proper process and meet the requirements of the Local Government Act is something no one in this House takes any pleasure from or takes lightly. It is something that rightly gets an intense degree of scrutiny—all that is available to this House in fact.Let me make it quite clear from the outset that legislation of this nature is a last resort and reflective of significant failures by those who are entrusted by ratepayers. One of the questions that I want to see answered on behalf of ratepayers in accepting that the council got it wrong—and the council does accept that it got it wrong—is whether it is also the case that its overseers Audit New Zealand also failed in not identifying the failures of that council. I want to come back to that point a little later.Ratepayers should be able to have confidence in their elected councillors to carry out their core functions but in this case they have been woefully let down. Rightly they are upset angry and frustrated and have been for some time. But they also need the matters to be resolved in order to bring certainty and a sound platform to rebuild the district and to have confidence in returning the district to democratic elections and all that they bring. This local bill we are dealing with is one part of a number of processes that are under way to help bring about this eventuality.Since 2012—in fact not long after I was elected—a number of interventions investigations and actions have actually got under way. I want to run through just a couple of those: the implementation of a Government-appointed review team and the subsequent report that saw the resignation of the sitting councillors at the time; the appointment of a team of commissioners; the review adjustment and adoption of a new long-term plan; and an independent inquiry into the council’s auditor at the time Audit New Zealand. There have been inquiries from both the police and the Serious Fraud Office with a view to establishing whether there was prima facie evidence of any criminal activity. To date there has been insufficient evidence to warrant this but none the less efforts continue. There have been inquiries by the commissioners into all other matters surrounding the failures of this council including those of the former chief executive officer Jack McKerchar. And of course there is this local bill which the commissioners asked me as the local member of Parliament to sponsor.This bill has become something of a lightning rod and rightly so. Many of the plethora of issues that the commissioners and the council have been confronted with dohave a foundation back in this bill. However I will say that what we must do in looking at this bill is look at it through a lens—in terms of the whole picture—and understand that fundamentally what this bill is doing is far less controversial and of less consequence than many of the other activities that are going on. Notwithstanding that it is a very important part of the process.The questions the commissioners were confronted with in dealing with the multitude of failures by the previous council were how they could best be addressed and what the best mechanism was to move to deal with these issues and to be able to move the district forward with the least amount of cost and the greatest amount of certainty. As we have seen with the Tasman District Council and other councils recently and with some still to come unfortunately there are times when this House must deal with retrospective legislation of this nature. It is not a desirable thing it is not palatable—in fact it is quite repugnant in many respects—but it is necessary. In this case the decision was made that this course of action was the most appropriate in all the circumstances. Although the bill is important in order to resolve the errors and failures of the council I want to assure this House and all ratepayers of this district that accountability is just as important as any one of the other processes that are under way.As a former police detective I can assure the House that seeking justice runs through my veins. As such I insisted that a clause be included in the bill that clearly stipulates that no one is absolved of responsibility or accountability as a result of this legislation. Clause 14 states that “nothing in this Act affects the right of the Council or any other person to bring any proceedings against any person arising out of or in connection with any actions or omissions associated with matters validated by this Act.” In layman’s terms this is not a “get out of jail free” card for those who have stuffed up and got it wrong. I give my absolute and sincere commitment to all the ratepayers to members of this House and to constituents of my electorate that I will leave no stone unturned in seeking the accountability that they rightfully deserve. Where that can be sheeted home I will ensure that I do everything I can to see that occur. This bill does not in any way alter my determination to do that. Some have suggested that once the bill is passed all will be forgotten. I can give everyone an assurance at least on my part that that is certainly not the case. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not someone who gives his word lightly.The matters contained within the bill I am going to leave to members of the committee to specifically address. I want to cover off just a couple more things in my contribution. It is important to point out that this bill does not validate the $30 million decision to expand the sewerage scheme so that is an aside from the matters that are being dealt with here. The select committee has made some very minor alterations to the bill. Most significant it has made it clear to the commissioners that some of the penalties should be relieved. There have been some very constructive conversations occurring along these lines. The bill validates the penalties on the rates that this bill validates. Sorry—this bill validates the penalties on the rates that this bill validates. What I am trying to say here—Rt Hon Winston Peters: It validates a fraud.MIKE SABIN: Well I will come to that Mr Peters—I will come to that Mr Peters. Come up north with me and we will have a discussion about it. It is nice that you are bringing yourself into the conversation now. The select committee in its deliberations believed that some of the penalties should be relieved and I can see and concur with the views that have been shared in this respect. I have worked with the commissioners very closely to ensure that they can accommodate the requests of the select committee to address those views and I am pleased to report that the commissioners have in factdone that and have provided assurances to the committee as to how they will go about it.In terms of the further penalties—sorry I am not going to have time; I am not going to cover that off. Other members will no doubt cover it off. In addition to the further penalties that have been applied in 2013—which the commissioners will seek to forgive—there are penalties over and above those which would commence as at 1 January 2014 on the balance of other outstanding rates. These will also be forgiven. If people pay their rates by 30 June 2014 they will be forgiven those penalties. The commissioners will work through this process with them.I want to turn now to the auditor. It is wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of the Auditor-General’s report or the report on the auditor but can I say that if it is shown that the auditor has failed in its responsibilities as the overseer for these councillors then that responsibility should be sheeted home. If that responsibility is there then that is a responsibility that the auditor owes the ratepayers of Kaipara District to pay. So I say in this House that if that failure is proven I will ask that the Auditor-General seek to meet with the commissioners to ensure that the cost of that failure is met. It is not a cost that should be borne by the ratepayers of the district. How can a scheme go from $11 million to $62 million without the auditor raising those concerns and without the auditor responding to the many issues that were brought to it by many—many—across the district over a long period of time? Those questions will be answered in the days and weeks to come as the report becomes evident.I want to support my constituents by ensuring that this bill passes before Christmas. The implications of it not doing so are significant. Although I accept that many have been angry and upset about it it is a necessary part of the recovery of this district. I commend to all members that they support this bill and support the ratepayers of the Kaipara.