Williams Andrew: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17074. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):Thank you for recognising me because you did not in the Koru lounge on Tuesday morning calling me Brian once again. So thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I think that is about the fifth time you have called me Brian in the last 2 months. But as you did say in the Koru lounge you do always recognise me correctly in the House.Having said that Brian—sorry Mr Assistant Speaker—New Zealand First does support this bill the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill and we commend Damien O’Connor the local member for Labour there for bringing this to the House and helping to sort this out on behalf of the Tasman District Council and indeed its ratepayers. At the end of the day there were some administrative errors made. Everybody makes mistakes. It would appear listening to the speeches of the National Party members that nobody in their party makes mistakes. They seem to think that they are perfect and that people should not make mistakes.But in this situation quite simply what happened was that a map was not included when the council sent out the advice with the official documentation to the ratepayers and the map did not determine exactly where the rates were being struck in terms of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach. It was simply the omission of that map that meant that the rates that were struck for the area were not deemed to be valid. We need to rectify that so that for those 4 or 5 years that the rates were taken the rates are not required to be clawed back. To try to claw them back and to try to refund those rates to those ratepayers would be almost impossible because properties change hands owners change people come and go. Therefore it would be virtually impossible.At the same time if those rates were refunded the burden of the cost of those rates goes on to the remaining ratepayers of the district and why should the remaining ratepayers across the Tasman District pick up the tab for what was simply an administrative error? It is a lose-lose situation for all in a sense and we have to validate it to turn it into a win-win so that everyone can just get on with it.At the end of the day every council has a collective responsibility across every community to provide for stormwater and all sorts of other services. In this situation there was a collective responsibility to provide the infrastructure in this area. They have had some significant flooding through this area at different times. They have had some terrible disasters and storms that have gone through the Tasman District. At the end of the day they are very dependent on having stormwater provisions and this is just one of them.Also we heard today some interesting comments from Nick Smith. He said—and so did some of the other National members—that councils are responsible for making sure this all happens and that there is a responsibility on both councillors and the council staff to ensure that this all goes tickety-boo and goes to plan. However much of this is also on the basis of what is handed to them in terms of the legislation from this Parliament—from central government. Councils have to work within that legislation. Too often central government politicians particularly National Government politicians criticise local government and say that it is not fulfilling its requirements. Yet what local government is doing most of the time is actually carrying out what is required of it under legislation.It is very interesting when the Hon Nick Smith talks about the rate rises running at 8 or 9 percent in some areas of New Zealand in the early part of the 2000s. One of the reasons for that—for instance in the Auckland situation; and it was identified in a number of reports—is that Auckland for instance received $7 billion of underfunding for its roading and infrastructure over a 15-year period from central government petrol taxes. That is one of the reasons why Auckland got into an incredible traffic jam. Had Auckland received the amount of petrol taxes that the people of the Greater Auckland region had paid over that 15-year period there would be $7 billion more in the kitty to spend on roading and transport infrastructure in the Auckland area.As a result today much of the roading that was started under a Labour Government with support from New Zealand First in the mid-2000s is now being finished. It should probably have been finished 10 years ago. Also as a result much of the other public transport infrastructure would have been completed. So we cannot always point the finger at councils.In the present situation again regarding Tasman District Council the Hon Nick Smith says that councils like the Tasman District Council and others have to cut their cloth and work on behalf of their ratepayers. Nicky Wagner the chair of our Local Government and Environment Committee said the same. However this very same National Government which is at the moment looking at the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) is in the process of removing development levies from how the councils operate and how they take their revenues. It is removing development levies from the provision of community infrastructure.Community infrastructure covers things like sports grounds recreational facilities libraries swimming pools and all sorts of community facilities. Those development levies that are taken on new subdivisions—on sections on subdividing properties on new builds and all that sort of thing—go towards the overall kitty. It is a little bit like the collective kitty for Tata Beach across Tasman Bay. They go into the collective kitty that provides for the councils to then provide the necessary infrastructure for their community.But the National Government is at the present time looking to remove that. It is very interesting as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee to sit on the hearings at the moment. We have had hearings in Wellington and in Auckland and we have heard from councils developers associations and all sorts of organisations across New Zealand. At the moment it is running at about nine to one in terms of opposing what this Government is doing and in terms of removing those development levies from community infrastructure—nine to one. There are very very few in support of what the Government is doing. As usual it is the Government’s old mates—the ones from the Business Roundtable and those sorts of people—who are supporting that. But in fact most of the authorities throughout New Zealand and most of the people who know—in fact indeed developers have come along to the Local Government and Environment Committee and have said that this is not on. They have said that this is not good legislation and that removing development levies from community infrastructure will be a retrograde step and that what it will do is to put more rates on to the ratepayers. It will result in more rates on the ratepayers.In the case of the Auckland Council it submitted that as a result of this legislation from the National Government the rates will have to increase by something in the order of 8.5 percent over the next 10 years if the development levies are removed from community infrastructure. That is shocking. We cannot have the likes of Jacqui Dean Nick Smith and Nicky Wagner pointing the finger and saying that rates have to come down. We will probably hear shortly from the toxic one Maggie Barry about the same thing. We will get a rounded round-up from Maggie Barry very soon. We are bound to have an attack from her on local government again. She will pour borax all over local government and attack it for rates rises while she sits on the very same Local Government and Environment Committee that is about to remove the ability of councils throughout New Zealand to levy development levies on developers for community infrastructure.Maggie Barry: You’ve got that wrong as usual Brian. Wrong Brian.ANDREW WILLIAMS: She cannot deny it but that is what is going to happen. So Brian—sorry Mr Assistant Speaker HV—New Zealand First supports this bill. We commend the member Damien O’Connor for bringing this forward. No one likes to look at retrospective legislation. It is always a difficult thing in the House to have to validate situations like this but in this case New Zealand First is of the mind that this legislation is necessary and valid. We must do it and we must allow this community to get on. We wish the Tasman District Council and all those in Ligar Bay and Tata Beach all the best and we hope that we can put this behind us and get on in the best interests of that community. Thank you Brian.