O'Connor Damien: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16088. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I moveThat the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill be now read a second time. Can I firstly thank all the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the efforts they made in trying to reach a win-win solution with this bill. I suggest it was more like a win-draw solution in the end but I do acknowledge the extra efforts they made to try to get a solution.It could be said that what goes around comes around and there are a number of lessons in this whole process for not only the Tasman District Council and its staff and councillors but also many councils up and down this country. This bill has been subject to much concern and comment—and quite rightly so—from a group of ratepayers fromLigar Bay andTata Beach who brought this issue to the attention of the Tasman District Council. I appreciate the efforts that they went toto follow through with this which is effectively leading to the bill in Parliament today.As its name suggests the bill seeks to validate a number of irregularities that occurred in the setting and assessing of rates by the Tasman District Council over a 6-year period from 2003-04 to 2008-09. In this regard I do find myself repeating the words of a colleague in the House at the end of last year. He was saying with regard to the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill that no one isa fan of retrospective legislation least of all the MP who is required to sponsor that legislation. So I bring this legislation to the House somewhat reluctantly but on behalf of the ratepayers in the northern part of my electorate.As I say it is never a good look to have retrospective legislation to rectify failures that have occurred and this bill effectively validates the actions of a council that failed to follow proper process and to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act. But it is as the member previously acknowledged regarding Kaipara the only way to make progress and give some certainty.The question I would like to see answered on behalf of the Tasman ratepayers is whether it is also the case that the overseers in the case Audit New Zealand provided proper safeguards for the ratepayers through those years when effectively it approved the process in the Tasman district. And of course that was proven not to be valid. Some would say the ratepayers of Tasman District Council had been let down. As advisers told the committee Tasman District Council failed “Rates 101” effectively and that is something of a condemnation for a council that has prided itself I guess on process. It certainly demands proper process of its ratepayers when they come to make applications so it does go as I said to the situation of what goes around comes around.In regard to the ratepayers ofLigar Bay andTata Beach I would just like to say that firstly they ended up paying a rate they considered was not valid. They have not been receiving specific water drainage services but indeed were asked by the council to pay a rate. They have been angry and frustrated. It was indeed their follow-through that alerted the Tasman District Council to the mistakes across other areas of its rate demands.Tasman District Council of course as is prone to happen in councils absolutely denied any problem with the setting of the rates and denied the fact that these rates were illegal. The origin of the dispute as I said lies with the challenge by those ratepayers. When the council denied that anything was wrong the ratepayers then took that to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman came to an interesting conclusion and there are a couple of quotes I would like to refer to: “The procedure for making a rate is set out in section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. I am accordingly not satisfied that a rate has been made.” The Ombudsman went on to say: “I am accordingly not satisfied that aTata Beach Urban Drainage Area has been established.” And finally to take a quote: “I have formed a view that levying a stormwater rate forTata Beach was based wholly or partly on a mistake of law and fact”. Effectively the rate was not properly imposed.These things may seem technical to someone from the outside but a particular ratepayer in the group decided to follow through with this and was proven to be correct. In investigating it the Ombudsman said that actually there are a whole lot of rates that have not been set properly. I would like to acknowledge MrSchmuke and a number of people who live over atTata Beach for their tenacity. They have brought this to a head and they have probably alerted a number of councils around the country to the technical challenges of setting rates.Parliament deems rates levies on industries and taxes paid to be very sacrosanct and it is important that there are protections for both the person paying the rate and those people who demand them. Unfortunately limitations around a local bill and the scope of the notices advertising meant that the request by the local ratepayers atTata Beach andLigar Bay to have clause 9 omitted from the bill was not possible. And in fact the bill put to the select committee had to be passed in its complete form or if there were to be any amendments there was a requirement to take the bill back for consultation which the council did not want to go through; I guess officials certainly did not.There was a view that even if the bill for all of the rates forTata Beach andLigar Bay were omitted it would have been a big challenge to then go and find the people who paid the rates at that time and subsequent to that and find out where they are living now and how much they had paid. So the committee on balance decided that we should proceed with the bill as presented by the Tasman District Council without any change.The people who raised the issue the people who were proven to be correct the people who still think they are paying a drainage rate when they should not be are still a bit sore about this. But I have to say that on balance we should acknowledge their efforts and we should assure them that the rates paid by them will protect their properties better than they otherwise would if there was no money. So I think that overall we have made some progress in what has been a long and tortuous process for a number of key ratepayers.I would just like to say to Tasman District Council that although I am happy to sponsor this bill and to put it forward the council should hear the lesson and that is that officials in councils should listen to ratepayers who come along with queries and with issues because often they are correct. And this is a unitary council so the normal tension between resource management of a regional council and the district council’s responsibilities does not exist in Tasman District Council. It is one council for both areas of responsibilities. That tension that often gives better accountability does not occur in Tasman so we are reliant on the wisdom the skills and the judgment of officials in one unitary council. I am not convinced that that is the best way forward. None the less we have a unitary council in Tasman in part due to the lobbying and cheap politicking of the Hon Nick Smith some time ago. But we will put that to one side and say that the passage of this bill will validate rates that have been claimed by the Tasman District Council.Without this bill’s passage those rates are effectively illegal so the council needs certainty over the income it took. It does not want to be subject to any legal challenge. But in passing this legislation in whole we should acknowledge the efforts of theTata Beach andLigar Bay residents who brought this to the attention of the council first and then to the Ombudsman. Then legislation in Parliament was required to rectify a problem that was initially denied by the Tasman District Council.Councils up and down this country should take note—there may be some technical problems with rates being set today or yesterday so double-check. And councils should appreciate the fact that ratepayers ordinary people of New Zealand can make mistakes in dealing with councils and they should not be clobbered for it just in the way that Parliament is facilitating the passage of this bill and acknowledging the mistake of the Tasman District Council but not making it pay the penalty.