Heatley Phil: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHeatley Phil: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):I would like to take the time to focus in on clauses 5 to 9 of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill and on the details that for many members are hidden behind these words. A once-over-lightly reading might suggest that we are making some sweeping changes here but it is important to note that clauses 5 6 and 7 in particular are a summary of what we saw in the preamble. For example in clause 5 here it talks about the “Validation of specified rates” and says that “Despite the failure of the Council to comply with section 23 or 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002—(a) the specified rates are valid …” and on it goes. Well sections 23 and 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act in terms of what we are having to validate in terms of section 23 by way of an example the council in 2003 and 2004 as stated in recital (3) did not “state clearly that the Council was setting rates as required by that section” which occurred in 2003-04. So there was the unlawful action covered by section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act. It also failed “to refer to all of the rates that were purported to be set” so when the resolutions were made the council in effect did not detail all the rates to be set. It sort of cherry-picked which ones it described in detail and it should have actually resolved to set them all individually and presumably voted on each of them.Also the council did not comply with section 23 of the Act as described in recital (4) of this bill. It did not “set the rates before the Council had resolved to adopt the annual plan …” and that is an important matter. It should have adopted the annual plan and then the rates setting falls out of that adoption rather than the other way round. Recital (5) of the preamble also talks about the breaches of section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act and in this case section 24 was breached because the council failed to state that all the rates were purported to be set in that particular year “that the rates could be paid by instalments”—it never made that clear—and that in fact penalties could be added to the rates. It should have done that all under section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. So in fact when you look at recitals 5 to 7 of the preamble where it talks about those breaches of section 23 and section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act those are the specific breaches we are talking about. Of course that is just in the 2003 to 2004 year.So here we have a change that the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended to these particular clauses of Part 2. For a start for the sake of consistency we are recommending a technical amendment be made to clauses 5(a) 6 and 9 to replace the term “declared to have been”—and we are talking about “declared to have been” made valid. We are saying that what we should better say for the sake of consistency is “declared to be and to always have been” and that is much more thorough all-encompassing and clear. It leaves little room for any doubt in any courtroom across New Zealand particularly in the courtrooms of the Tasman district that we are talking about validating rates. They are “declared to be and to always have been” valid. So where this works out in clause 5(a) we are saying that “the specified rates are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully set by the Council”.In clause 6 we are saying that “those rates are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully imposed by the Council.” In clause 9 we are saying that “the Tata Beach stormwater rate for the 2006/2007 financial year are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawfully set”. So there you have in clause 5(a) “always have been lawfully set by the Council”; in clause 6 “always have been lawfully imposed by the Council”; and again with Tata Beach in clause 9 “set and assessed by the Council”. So it is very very important to note that we have made that technical change. I would encourage parliaments moving forward—so for the rest of this year and I guess if most of the country feels this way hopefully with a National-led Government for the next 3 years—to include the consistency that we have included tonight. That is not to simply say “declared to have been” but to say “declared to be and to always have been”.I do want to touch a bit more deeply on clause 9 of Part 2 as well and that is the validation of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates. The committee was tempted—and many members of the committee are more open to temptation than others. Some of us try to lead more pure lives than others but some are tempted. We were all tempted to a degree by this issue of actually wiping clause 9 off the record books. Given the historic nature of the rating errors in question and being a very open Government and honest about what we do this would be difficult because without such validation a council would then be required to do a whole bunch of things regarding Ligar Bay and Tata Beach. It would have to determine which ratepayers had paid the rates in 2006-07 and the amounts they had paid and ascertain whether the current ratepayers are the same ratepayers as those in 2006-07. What an onerous task. It would have to apportion the rates if there were multiple owners of a residence—so if there were two owners over that time period it would have to apportion the rates presumably pro rata. If there were three owners it would have to apportion them three ways four ways and so on depending on the turnover of that property. It would have to write to each ratepayer advising them of the amount of the refund and requesting bank details for repayment.It is a difficult task tracking those people down getting their consent getting their bank account details—finding out all those details—and in the end having the permission to do so from the individual. So it is a difficult task indeed. We decided that we would in fact retain clause 9 albeit in an amended form. So that is a pragmatic solution to the issue of validation of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates.