Williams Poto: Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 01 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:2844. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly I just want to make some general comments about the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill and look to some of the substance of it. Then I want to make some comments with regard to what the member on the other side of the House Scott Simpson has just said. I think that by the end of this particular session we will be intimately aware of each individual part of this bill. It is a small bill; it is a fix-up bill. There is no denying that. It has been well traversed that the council needs this bill to pass in order to correct an issue that developed out of some work about 10 years ago.When you look at the bill you see that the preamble to the bill is longer than the rest of the bill. It is interesting; there are a couple of sections two parts to fix up the issue around the fact that we need to ensure we can validate the payment dates for the rates and validate the penalties on those unpaid rates. We can look at the setting of the rates that the revenue can actually lawfully be received by the council and that it can recover the penalties on any outstanding rates. That is in Part 1 of this bill. Clause 4 looks specifically at the rates for the Church Bay sewer loan the Church Bay water loan the Governors Bay sewer loan and the Governors Bay water loan. There are definitions around rates rates invoices the specific components within the rates—for example the water fire service connection rate—and waste minimisation. But they are for the specific periods mentioned previously—the 2004-05 years and latterly the 2012-13 years. If we do not fix this if we do not pass this legislation it means that the Christchurch City Council will continue to be in breach of section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.Thank you to the Local Government and Environment Committee for going to Christchurch to hear the submissions on this bill and on the previous bill concerning the Arts Centre. There was one submitter on this bill. Obviously it was the council and the bill came back to the House largely unchanged.The previous speaker talked about how relaxed the officials were in their submission. He talked about the lack of contrition the council officials demonstrated and the disregard they had for their roles and their jobs by allowing this error to occur in the first place. I have to defend the officials of Christchurch City Council. It is a difficult job but it is also rather ironic that that member chose to place upon the officials that responsibility when in this House every year we are presented with legislation that fixes up mistakes we have made in the past. Everyone makes mistakes. This is a bill that fixes up an error and I do think it is ironic that in the privilege of this House we can condemn the officials from the Christchurch City Council but we do not take responsibility for errors we make in the drafting of legislation we pass. I want Mr Simpson to just recognise that these are hard-working people and we are currently experiencing in our council in Christchurch City an extraordinary amount of work. They are currently engaged in the long-term plan process. There is a lot of stuff going on in Christchurch and I for one am supporting the fact that our officials work very hard. They cannot be here to defend themselves today.This bill is about the relationship between the council and central government. I have to say I am not entirely sure that the relationship that this Government has with the Christchurch City Council has been all that helpful or robust in recent times. Again I say I do defend the officials of Christchurch City Council. They are doing their job. They have admitted they have found a mistake and it is our job now to correct that mistake and we should do so with good heart and good intent. I do not think there is much more I can say on the bill.Carmel Sepuloni: There is.POTO WILLIAMS: Oh is there? OK; I shall say a little bit more. [Interruption] I have been given the instructions. I want to just comment on that relationship between central government and the Christchurch City Council because it is very important that we do what we can to ensure that relationship is strong. There have been issues—and I speak from my own electorate—between what the expectations of ratepayers and taxpayers are and where the relationship between the council and central government has not entirely been that consistent or coherent.I want to talk about the infrastructure that we are still waiting for in Christchurch East.Stuart Nash: Pity the councillors.POTO WILLIAMS: That is right. Thank you Mr Nash. We should all be defending councillors. It is a tough job.We are currently looking at ensuring that the infrastructure particularly the horizontal infrastructure in Christchurch East is remediated to a point where we can actually have smooth roads like other parts of our city. But I have to say that in that regard I do not know that the Government has actually come to the party for our ratepayers in Christchurch East. There is a partnership that needs to be forged and needs to continue to be robust. However I am concerned that that is not the case and that we are still subject to some very damaged roads some very dusty dusty outlooks. We are still replacing the sewer and the rest of the lines in Christchurch East when much of the rest of the city is 100 percent back to normal.I want to conclude now. I think I have pretty much said what I need to say on the matter. We do support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.