Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3)

The debate is on Part 6, clauses 61 to 67, including debate on schedule 1.

This part deals with the issue of rating information. Again, it highlights the problems with legislation that the Government passed in 2002. It has been a long-established custom and practice that when one goes to one’s local council office, one can see a list of properties, their ratings, and the listed owners of each of those properties. That has been really important public information. For instance, if I want to know who my neighbours are so that I can sort out a fencing problem, then I need to know their address, because there may be an issue about sharing the cost of that fence. Or I might want to put a drain through the adjoining property and I need to know who the owner is. It may be that I need to contact my neighbour in respect of changes I might be proposing to make under the Resource Management Act to the use of my own property. There are many quite legitimate reasons why people would want to know the names of the owners of particular properties.

In 2002 the Government, either deliberately or accidentally, removed the capacity for the public to have access to that information. I have to say that it has been something of an over-reaction to issues of privacy, whereby a whole lot of custom and practice that has worked very well for New Zealanders has resulted in all of this secrecy around information as basic as people’s ownership of land. The bill as drafted is intended to address that, and National is supportive of the provisions as they have been rewritten by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I have to say that National has saved the ratepayer a fortune by defeating and changing some of the politically correct and bureaucratic proposals that came from the Government in dealing with that issue. There was going to be an opt-in system whereby every damn ratepayer had to get a letter from the council seeking permission as to whether their land would be allowed on a database. National thought that was foolish. We thought the presumption should be in favour of disclosure and of people knowing that.

We think that a very low-level mechanism by which people can remove themselves from the list of ratepayers is the sort of approach we would favour, and we think that the select committee has done a far better job than the Government to provide the proper balance between pragmatic provisions that allow the public to have access to information that is required for them to get on with life. Whereas if, for reasons of domestic violence or for some other quite narrow reason, people want their names removed, they can do so. A person can register his or her property in the name of a trust, company, or some other identity, so I am doubtful that we need to go even as far as this legislation goes, but it is certainly a big step forward from what we have currently in terms of being able to provide this information to the public at large.

So National would argue that this information should be available. It will be a huge relief to real estate agents and the general public to again be able to go to their council office and see the registered list of landowners in their particular area, and to do so without great expense. I think that is appropriate, and that is why National is supporting Part 6.

I want to raise the matter in Part 6 that I mentioned in the second reading debate—namely, that on the Table lies my amendment regarding new clause 63AA, which covers lump-sum contributions. Again, I apologise to the Local Government and Environment Committee for not being there at the time that matter was raised, because the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill was also being debated at the same time, or, rather, was being looked at in another area of the House.

The issue is one that is well known to rural councils. Although the submission came from the Marlborough District Council, a number of rural councils, all of a like mind, gave support to it. I want to quickly run through them: the Far North District Council, Nelson City Council, Kaikoura District Council, Whangarei District Council, Grey District Council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, Kawerau District Council, Tasman District Council, Selwyn District Council, and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council all supported this change. Because I was not present during the committee discussions, I know no reason why this well-supported submission was not given further understanding, as it ought to have been.

The Rating Powers Act of 1988 contained a very prescriptive regime that allowed for lump-sum contributions that the council could offer in two ways—namely, for a particular works situation, or towards the capital cost of those works. The other way was to refinance an existing loan. However, the Act of 1988 was largely repealed in 2002, and in the repeal of the Act, although the specific issues of flexibility and lump-sum contributions were part of the select committee discussions, the actual end result was the inability to work through lump sums.

I have a very simple, not very complex amendment for members to look at that meets the need of a number of councils and that historically has been a method that rural councils, in particular, have used to allow lump-sum contributions. The system is calculated to be equitable and is fair on those who pay a lump sum up front and on those who pay charge by charge. Again, because I was not at the select committee I am at some pains to understand why this very sensible amendment was not given further thought. I commend this amendment to the Committee. New Zealand First supports this amendment.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of Jim Peters to insert new clause 63AA be agreed to.