Wagner Nicky: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16614. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):As we have heard in the Committee tonight the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is about validating the Tasman District Council rates from the period of 2003-04 through to 2008-09. That is when the council just did not follow correct procedure in setting its rates. It also validates the rates and the penalties paid during those periods. Then—perhaps most controversial of all—it ratifies the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate. As you have also heard in the Committee tonight Parliament and parliamentarians do not like validation bills. We would much rather that councils got it right that they used correct procedures the first time. But every now and then just as the member Andrew Williams has spoken about a bit of logic and a bit of common sense demand that we pass a validation bill. These bills always come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we work really hard to get a good result for ratepayers.The test we apply when we are looking at these breaches is whether the rates would have been valid if the processes were followed correctly. In other words is this a technical breach? Maybe the council used the wrong words maybe it did not consult properly maybe it left out a map or maybe there was incorrect timing. Is this a technical breach rather than something that could not have been valid even if the council had done everything right? In this case these rates could all have been levied correctly. The errors were technical and hence the Local Government and Environment Committee—because this test was passed—supported the bill.But the committee was very sympathetic to the arguments from the ratepayers in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay drainage area. There had been debate around what rating category was correct for the area and why the stormwater levies were necessary when some of the houses along the beach were sitting on free-draining sandy soils and did not get affected by the severe flooding. There was also debate about where the levy money would be spent and the quality of previously installed drainage work. This had been a long and bitter debate between local ratepayers and the council and so the committee did encourage them to try to find a negotiated solution outside the bill. We wanted them to see whether they could sort this out at a local level. In fact we had two attempts to get some agreement between the parties but we were unsuccessful. We considered deleting the relevant clause which was clause 9 but that was outside the scope of this bill. So the committee decided that the time the efforts and the cost to the council—and so in turn those are the costs to the ratepayers of the Tasman District Council—far outweighed the benefits to a small number of ratepayers.The philosophy we used when thinking about this was the fact that we all live in communities. We all pay our rates for a suite of services from local government. Individuals and neighbourhoods use more or less of those services but by sticking together we get the best outcome for everyone. So although some of those properties of those ratepayers in the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay area are less prone to flooding and were not flooded during the last flooding event the roads that led to that area and that they drive on the community facilities that they use and their neighbour’s properties still need to be protected from stormwater and everyone needs to contribute to the community’s solution.We also note that this bill has required a large amount of work effort and expense for the Tasman District Council. We hope—and we have heard from it—that it has improved its processes and that it will be able to manage its rating decisions more efficiently. We do expect it to lift its game because we hope that it will never again require further legislation in this House. Therefore despite our dislike of validation legislation the Local Government and Environment Committee—after much thought much debate—supports this legislation. Thank you.