Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill

I rise to take a short call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I recall when we were discussing this bill a week or two ago, in its second reading, that there was some concern expressed by the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. The only submitter who presented, of course, was the Christchurch City Council, and there was some concern that the officials were not, perhaps, paying due deference to the issues that actually brought this bill before Parliament. The issues are really that there had been some errors in previous rating decisions and deliberations by the Christchurch City Council, which meant that ratepayers could, in fact, charge the city council on the technicalities, because the council had not put the appropriate motions at the time that the rates were being set. This happened over a period of a few years—I think, from memory, in excess of 10 years—and what this piece of legislation seeks to do is validate those rates retrospectively. I know that we are not comfortable about retrospective legislation, but in this case this legislation provides the opportunity for the Christchurch City Council to, I guess, ensure that in future ratepayers will not take any action against it.

It is not an insignificant piece of legislation, because there are various parts of the rating mechanism that need to be addressed, and several years that need to be covered, as well. So it does look at various aspects of rating and it does also look at various areas within the Christchurch City Council realm, such as Governors Bay and Church Bay. It looks at various mechanisms, such as ensuring that the water loan rates on those two bays, for example, are taken care of.

I am comfortable that this piece of legislation will, in fact, provide the opportunity for the Christchurch City Council to ensure that its processes are now complete and now compliant, and I am sure that the Christchurch City Council has taken due note of the fact that it got itself into a bit of a difficult situation by not providing the right mechanisms at the time that the rates bills were to be delivered. On that note, there is really not much more to say on the matter, so I thank you for the opportunity, Mr Chair, and I commend the bill to the Committee.

I too rise to speak on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill at the Committee of the whole House stage. If anyone has been following this debate over the last few weeks, they will understand that nobody likes to talk about retrospective or validation legislation. There have been a few bills in this Parliament over the last couple of years that have fallen into these categories, and Parliament has struggled. We prefer things to be correct; we do not like to have to go back and clean them up afterwards. However, it is acknowledged in this case that a validation bill is the most practical, the most cost-effective, and the best way to address these historic rating irregularities of the Christchurch City Council.

The bill seeks to validate rates irregularities going back to 2003-04, right through to 2012-13. It all began after the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 was passed. The council deliberately sought to simplify its resolution for setting rates and paying penalties for unpaid rates. I think that was a positive desire. I think we are all aware of the need for plain language in local government legislation. These new simplified resolutions were used successfully until the rules were found in 2012 to be technically inadequate. Now, the council at that time was able to correct the 2013-14 rates demands, but at that stage the rating resolutions had been out of order for 10 years.

When the error in the rates setting was discovered by the Department of Internal Affairs in 2013, the council treated it really seriously. It was shocked that defective resolutions had been accepted by the department for 10 years without any concerns, and that the council’s auditors had never commented on them. So the council commissioned a legal review, councillors were briefed, and as soon as possible the information was collected and analysed. It held the council meetings open to the public and the minutes were available, so it was a very open process. As I have already said, at that stage the council was able to correct its 2013-14 rates resolution, and it has now changed the process so that every year compliance is verified by legal and audit requirements. The council is apologetic. It takes full responsibility for the errors prior to 2013. Its desire to further this bill demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. There is a major legal risk for the council if the errors are not validated.

The council has always been very open with the public about the errors and open about the steps that it has taken to rectify them, and, actually, the public have been largely accepting of the situation. No approaches were made to the council during the notification period of the bill and no submissions were made by the public to the select committee. But let me make it clear that in terms of the irregularities of the rates resolutions, all the required rating information—the rating years, the dates for the rates instalments, the penalties, the calculations, the dates for the payments—was available to the public. It just was not stated in the rates resolutions. Let me also make it clear that no ratepayers have been disadvantaged by this resolution. In fact, nobody noticed the error for over a decade.

So it was an error, yes, and of course we need our local councils to be accurate with information and to write resolutions correctly, but it was a victimless crime. I note that once notified the council took immediate action to rectify the situation, but I also note that over the decade in question the personnel in the council had mostly changed, so the new council staff have had to take on the responsibility of fixing the past resolutions and of preparing this bill. I thank them for that. I particularly thank—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Seeking your advice again, it has just been pointed out to us that the Minister, during this Committee stage, is giving her first reading speech word for word. Is that appropriate?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No, that is not a point of order.

May I just complete my discourse. I would like to thank the council staff—the staff who have been new to the council in the last 10 years—particularly Jane Parfitt, who was the acting chief executive officer at the time. It is not nice to have to take responsibility for other people’s errors and clean up after them, especially on top of all the other work that the Christchurch City Council is doing in terms of rebuilding our city.

So I support this bill. It is the easiest, the most cost efficient, and the practical way to correct past irregularities and to ensure that the Christchurch City Council’s resolutions now comply. Thank you.

The Green Party is supporting the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I do not think it is a victimless crime, though, in terms of what the city council has done. It means that we are here having to deal with rectifying its errors. My call will be a brief one, but it is just that it is interesting that the Minister Nicky Wagner, in terms of sponsoring the bill as the local member, talked about the council being very open about the errors that it had made and very open about the way in which it was going to rectify those errors. That contrasts markedly with the lack of transparency of the Government and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in terms of the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on the anchor projects, where there is very little information that is provided, despite large amounts of public money being used, and where Official Information Act requests are delayed and are heavily redacted when they are finally answered.

Part of the thing that this bill will do is actually enable the city council to recover outstanding rates and penalties. They amount to about $684,000, which is a significant amount, given the city council’s budget shortfall. That shortfall, of course, is in part due to the anchor projects being foisted upon the council by the Government. We support this bill. The member in the chair has very ably gone through the reasons for it and the way in which the council has tackled those errors, but one of the things that I have been puzzled by is that, in a mere 3½ years in this House, I have spoken on three rates validations bills. The former Minister of Local Government the Hon Dr Nick Smith did a lot of tub-thumping, criticising local government, when at the time he really should have been ensuring that there were much better guides being produced by the Department of Internal Affairs to assist councils in how they pass their rates resolutions to avoid getting into the situation that the Christchurch City Council has. I am pleased the department is now, somewhat belatedly, working with Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers to improve council practice in setting these rates resolutions, and ensuring that the resolutions are clear and actually follow the provisions of the Local Government (Rating) Act.

This is an uncontroversial bill, we will be supporting it, and I think that we have canvassed all the reasons for that in earlier speeches. Thank you.

I will not trouble the House for too long with this call. It is a very short bill; I think it warrants a very short speech. I would like to echo the words of the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, and say that the Labour Party is supporting this bill, but we do share the concerns that far too often we are in this House doing validation bills. We acknowledge that the work has been done by the present council to rectify the problems that have been found in terms of a resolution around levying of the rates. It is not something that we want to do. We urge this House, this Parliament, to do far more in terms of ensuring that we do not get into this situation again. It is my pleasure for Labour to support this bill.

It is a pleasure, as chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, to take a call on this bill as it progresses through the House through its Committee stage. I want to acknowledge the local member, the Hon Nicky Wagner, who has ably supported and sponsored this bill, under difficult circumstances in a way. I do not think that any local member takes any pleasure at all in bringing to the House a piece of validating legislation. In the second reading we heard from a number of people, myself included, who were, I think, unhappy about the prospect of us having to consider it. This is quite a succinct, short, and pithy bill that actually fixes irregularities that relate to payment dates for rates and the authority to impose penalties on unpaid rates that occurred through a mistake, albeit an honest mistake, made by the Christchurch City Council.

This is a local bill. The irregularities, as the sponsoring member indicated, actually were victimless in terms of nobody having suffered financial loss or cost. But the council has really just dodged a bullet because if, in fact, any ratepayer had decided to bring legal action against the council during any one of those 10 years before the error was discovered, there would have been significant potential for financial loss, not only to the council but to the wider ratepaying group. The Christchurch City Council failed to state in its rates resolution that the rates were payable by instalments and not only that but what the payment dates for those instalments might be and what penalties, if there were to be any, might or might not be added. So it failed to state some very basic things. I hasten to add that these errors occurred some 10 years or more ago—several chief executive officers ago—and the opportunity, I guess, to seek retribution from the people who were responsible for ensuring that the errors did not occur has long since passed.

However, notwithstanding that, it is my view that the council should perhaps have been a little more contrite in terms of its submission to the select committee. We went and heard the submission. There was only one submission; this was it. It was just a mere two pages from the council. It was the only submission that was received. I have to say on behalf of the committee that we were singularly underwhelmed by the presentation received from the council staff and councillor who presented to the select committee in Christchurch on the day that we had the hearing.

Sections in the bill are actually quite short. Clause 5 validates the payment dates for the rates in a way that did not occur during the rates motion. Clause 6 validates any penalties that may have been added to those rates through the error and omission that took place some 10 years ago. Clause 7 declares that all money received by the council in payment of the rates and any penalties paid in respect of those rates during the period in which the error was unidentified will in fact be validated and that there will be no potential for recovery from ratepayers who may have felt that those rates had been—as they were—collected constitutionally, in terms of legality, illegally by the Christchurch City Council.

Clause 9 goes on to validate the specified rates. These comprise the council’s uniform annual general charge and seven targeted rates where irregularities have been identified in terms of section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. These resolutions were made so that the purpose of this bill is to validate those resolutions, so that the status would be that the previous resolutions would then be validated from 2004-05 through to the financial year 2012-13.

So I think that it is fair to say that in terms of the impact of this error that occurred in Christchurch City, the council is very lucky to have got away as lightly as it did. This was during a period of time when the chief executive officers were being paid most generously by the ratepayers. They were negligent in their role in ensuring that the correct motions were passed, that the correct financial motions were made available to the elected councillors. I for one felt very unhappy that the council actually showed no contrition at all for that. I acknowledge that the current councillors and current council staff were not personally responsible, but not withstanding that, there were very significant errors. If the errors had occurred in other jurisdictions where members of the public and ratepayers had been perhaps testing of this situation, then there would have been very significant financial cost to the council and ratepayers. The legal cost alone would have been enormous.

This piece of legislation affirms that all money received by the council in payment of the rates, and any penalties paid in respect of those rates, to be and to always have been lawfully paid and received by the council. So what that means is that there will no longer be an opportunity for any disgruntled or offended ratepayer to bring a retrospective piece of litigation against the council in a way that may have allowed the council to become further financially compromised if such a piece of litigation had taken place.

Although the funding impact statement for each year of the errors included all the information that was required—so on the actual rates bill the correct information was there—notwithstanding that, the formal proper motions had not been passed by the elected councillors, the people who are elected by the good citizens of Christchurch to ensure that local government legislation is enacted and passed according to law. That did not occur, and those people were potentially very vulnerable. So this piece of validating legislation ensures that the errors and omissions made by staff and councillors long gone are, in fact, put right.

As other speakers have said, this House does not like to consider these sorts of validating pieces of legislation. Regrettably, we are all too often put in a position where errors of this sort at a local government level do occur, and it is up to a local member, who has no real opportunity to put right the error, to come to the House, seek the time of the House, seek the goodwill of a select committee, and then put it to the House—where time and effort is occupied at not inconsiderable cost to the taxpayer—to ensure that things are put right on behalf of the innocent ratepayers of Christchurch.

I hasten to add that this is not a small territorial authority. Christchurch City Council represents one of the largest council operations in the country. The level of expectation that rests upon it is surely at the high end of the spectrum in terms of compliance, in terms of fulfilling its role as local body legislator, and in terms of protecting the rights and interests of the ratepayers. So I am not in any way going to discount the roles and obligations of smaller jurisdictions, of smaller councils, but I think that sometimes they may not have the same access to legal counsel and the same access to professional advice and information that the very large councils do.

Christchurch City Council is a very significant enterprise. It is an enterprise that is of large size and volume and that pays its senior staff extraordinarily well in order to get things right. On this occasion, over a period of not 1 year, not 2 years, not 3 years, not 4 years, but, in fact, a whole decade, these errors were not spotted. These errors were not spotted by the highly paid professional staff of the council and then the councillors were not made aware of it. Perhaps worse, to add insult to injury, nor was the error spotted by the auditors who were also charged with ensuring that these kinds of errors do not slip through the cracks.

This is an unfortunate piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I would prefer, as chair of the select committee, we did not have to bring to the House.

I am very conscious of the fact that we do need to progress quickly so we can get another bill drawn out of the ballot, so I will not take up too much of your time up here, like some people appear to be trying to do. I do apologise before I start now that I may well be repeating some of the things that other good speakers—

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Get on with it, Ron.

Jonathan, Jonathan—have a holiday, mate. It is coming soon; do not worry. Anyway, so this is what I mean—the collegial atmosphere was in existence, and then someone arrives in the Chamber. But never mind; we will move through.

I do apologise if I am actually going to repeat some of the things that have been said, but I do have to get them on the record for New Zealand First, so bear with me, please. I have got to applaud Scott Simpson again. That speech hit the nail right on the head. I, unfortunately, was not able to be at the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings in Christchurch that day, but the one comment that came back consistently—and the member Scott Simpson has put it on the table here today—was about the attitude and the behaviour of the Christchurch City Council officials. There are some good members on that committee from the Government side. They have all expressed their dismay and their concern at the behaviour. I would like someone on the Christchurch City Council to read the Hansard, to replay these speeches from this evening, and to take a message, because this message comes from the whole of the select committee.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: No, it doesn’t.

Well, that message about the behaviour of Christchurch City Council—well, OK, Labour is distancing itself from that; New Zealand First is not. New Zealand First is not. New Zealand First does not like passing retrospective legislation to tidy up muck-ups, mess-ups, stuff-ups from people who get highly paid—well paid—to not make such mistakes. We do not actually like having to support this piece of legislation, but we will because it is the quickest, cleanest, and most sensible way of tidying up an inexcusable situation that has arisen and been allowed to occur over 10 years.

I am going to take the opportunity to mention some of the things that I raised during the select committee hearing. I have heard a lot of rhetoric from certain people promoting super-cities and telling me such things as that they bring a greater capacity to employ people with high skill sets that small councils cannot. Let us be clear about this. Carterton District Council is the third-smallest council in New Zealand. It has never made a stuff-up like this. It cannot afford to pay people the exorbitant rates that that former chief executive officer of Christchurch City Council, who became infamous all over New Zealand, got. In fact, I think he got fired or dumped from Hamilton, went down to Christchurch, inflicted his misery down there, and got paid an absolute fortune for doing so, and yet oversaw this debacle as one of a couple of chief executive officers who oversaw it.

The process and the procedures that most competent, well-run councils have is that they have a run sheet sitting there to guide the mayor and to guide the council through the motions that have to be put, and the run sheet is accurate. The run sheet is not inaccurate and does not lead the councillors or the mayors into such a debacle. The person who, at the end of the day, is ultimately responsible for making sure that that run sheet is accurate and that those resolutions that are moved are legally binding and accurate and in compliance with the law is the chief executive officer. End of story.

It is absolutely appalling that we end up dealing with an issue where the uniform annual general charges were not correctly passed and seven targeted rates were inappropriately described in resolution, and that we ended up here. For the council to then turn up at the select committee and behave in such a way that was less than contrite I find absolutely astonishing. And that comes from me, someone who lived in Christchurch for 30-odd years and spent a hell of a lot of time working with people like Vicki Buck, Garry Moore, and a whole bunch of Labour councillors whom I got to know very, very well through my time being a Labour Party member down there.

So this annoys us in New Zealand First. It annoys us that we are wasting the time of the House and the time of the select committee and the taxpayers’ dollars tidying up a mess that should never have occurred, and it annoys us that the council should have been less than contrite and, in fact, came across as somewhat flippant and arrogant about the whole thing. It annoys me as a former mayor of a small rural council that I continually hear about how wonderful super-cities are. Let us be clear: Christchurch City Council is a super-city. It is the first super-city. I actually also find it quite ironic that the Minister who is having to bring this legislation to the House as a member and actually advance it through was also herself a member of Environment Canterbury as well.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill, sponsored by the Hon Nicky Wagner, MP for Christchurch Central. The Local Government (Rating) Act provides an avenue for councils to amend incorrectly set rates. In the case of Christchurch, it was to correct irregularities that occurred in the resolutions setting the Christchurch City Council’s rates for the financial years 2003-04 to 2012-13. In particular, as we have already heard from my speech on the previous reading, Christchurch City Council had been in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act for some 10 years—some 10 years. It seemed that the council may have felt that its oversight of resolutions required would eventually right itself, but it did not. Perhaps with the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes the resolutions error was the furthest thing from its immediate attention. But the problem, as suggested, just moved over for the urgency of the earthquakes. Were the council bureaucrats aware pre-earthquake of the rates resolution issue? Did they know that, if left, the Government may intervene? And did the councillors know about the situation? Or was this a genuine oversight? Was it arrogance? What was it? We in this House will never really know. For all our posturing and finger pointing here today, we must conclude that we will never know what happened there, even including those auditors. And who kept an eye on those auditors? We will not know.

What we do know, though, is that we are here today. This National-led Government is righting the wrongs of the past. We are doing that. Some of this stuff happened back in the time of the previous Government. It was unaware of it. The window for the time of the Christchurch City Council rates resolution has passed. We need to move on. We have been here before, though, have we not? The Government has passed retrospective legislation pertaining to rates validation. Let us look at the first time we passed retrospective legislation on rates validation. The member Damien O’Connor sponsored the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill during the period 2003—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on this bill.

OK. Righty-o. What I was trying to do was explain that this is not the first time. We have done this two other times—the Tasman District Council and the Kaipara District Council—twice for rates validation.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would just like your assistance on this. Clearly, you have already asked the speaker once to get back to the relevance. The Tasman District Council is not under question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that.

These are examples of where respective councils have not adhered to the law. In the case of Christchurch city, when the rates resolution was simplified, the council failed to specify the rates payment dates, the penalties charged, how penalties were calculated, and the dates by which the penalties would apply. When this was brought to the council’s attention by the Department of Internal Affairs, the council acted quickly. For me, this is the third time the Government has had to pass legislation validating rates, and it has to stop because the cost of doing so through the House is very expensive, as we heard from the Minister.

💬 Sue Moroney: So sit down. You’re just costing money.

Just listen, because you might learn something. I want to add—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

To the member, sorry—to the member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Do not bring me into the debate, and stick to the subject in hand.

OK. For me, this is the third time the Government has had to pass legislation validating rates, and it has to stop because the cost of doing so, as mentioned by the Minister previously, through the House has been so expensive. I want to add into my speech today about the changes that have occurred in Christchurch post-earthquake. It is the work that the council continued to do to support the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part—[Interruption] This is a very succinct debate, and the content of it does not go beyond what is in the bill. I ask the member to come back to it.

Thank you. This is a short yet focused bill that is remedying the wrongs. Clause 5 validates—

I move, That the question be now put.

I take great pleasure in rising to make a brief contribution in the Committee stage of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I have a couple of comments to make, but I do actually have a question for the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, which I hope at some point she may be able to address. My specific point that I want to make actually references comments that have been made in this debate already by the honourable member Major Ron Mark from the New Zealand First Party. In response to some of the things Ron Mark said, I have to say that I share his view that the Local Government and Environment Committee works together very well and in a collegial way under the able and eminent chairmanship of the honourable member Scott Simpson, the member for Coromandel.

Although none of us want to have to deal with such an issue, this has been a bill that we have worked our way through in a calm, considered, and consistent manner, listening to the views of the only submitter on this bill, which was the Christchurch City Council. We have come up with a pragmatic solution to the issues that were faced due to the incorrect charging of rates over a period of years. I would like to refer to the preamble to the bill, recitals (2)(a) through to (2)(i)(ii), which refer specifically to the period over which rates were incorrectly charged.

This is an issue that has come up before in the course of discussion around this bill, but one of the key elements that distinguishes this bill from many of the others we see is that it contains a large degree of retrospectivity—that is, it has a retroactive effect. We have previously discussed the pros and cons of such a state of affairs. In fact, I believe that last time I referred to the great British legal theoretician A V Dicey, who was an Oxford Vinerian Professor of English Law and debated the different benefits and consequences of having retrospective clauses in legislation. This, however, I think would fit Dicey’s definition of a curative provision in this bill, because it sets right a wrong. It is not entirely a victimless crime, which I think is a term used by the Green Party member Eugenie Sage. In fact, the Minister herself might have used that term. It is not entirely victimless as there are some affected parties, but it certainly is not by righting this technical failure made by council staff and advisers and councils themselves in the resolutions they passed over a very long period of time—in righting this wrong—it is restoring the state of affairs that should have existed had everything been properly done. There are no real victims to this change that is being proposed in this piece of legislation.

I want to single out in particular the sponsoring member as it is a local bill, a bill local to Christchurch, but also it is a bill brought forward by the local member, the Hon Nicky Wagner. I think she is an excellent, very hard-working, very assiduous member who has brought us a simple, clear, and concise but very well-formed piece of legislation, which does exactly what needs to be done.

The question, I suppose, I have for the sponsoring member in the chair goes to the specific detail around what we are actually retrospectively validating. The question that I have is about the uniform annual general charge—if the member has any information on this—that is being retrospectively validated. What kind of proportion is that amount compared with the seven other targeted rates that are being retrospectively validated? It is certainly something we went through in the select committee, but I am still not entirely clear about the scale of retrospective validation of the uniform annual general charge as compared and contrasted with the seven other targeted rates, which I think encompass issues such as water and drainage board rates. If there was an opportunity to hear from the sponsoring member on that I would certainly welcome that.

The other question that we had in the select committee that we asked the council—which was the only submitter on this bill—when we were going through line by line and analysing each clause of this bill. It did not exactly have the tone, I think, of response, in my perception, that the honourable Ron Mark detected in that I did not quite see arrogance, but I certainly saw a slight dismissiveness in the reaction in terms of taking accountability and responsibility for these mistakes that were made in the past, as referenced in the preamble to this piece of legislation. The question I have is around whether this can happen again and whether the validating legislation was absolutely necessary, given the council has corrected this in its own internal processes to make sure that in its own case, anyway, in its locality, we are not going to see such an issue arise again in the future.

What we heard from the council did contain elements of dismissiveness and elements of, perhaps, pushing the blame on to staff who were no longer in their offices within the city council today. I acknowledge that this has been an ongoing problem for many, many years, in fact going back to 2003, throughout the periods of tenure of two different Governments of the Realm of New Zealand, and certainly different councillors and council officials have cycled through that organisation over that time period. I was somewhat taken aback that there was not an entire degree of acceptance that the fault was with the council for not having followed what are clear provisions in the basic legislation that councils are required to enforce and to carry out under section 119 of the Local Government (Rating) Act.

Although it is pleasing to see that this is being remedied, I think there were a number of members on the committee—including, clearly, Mr Mark from his comments, but I think others, particularly on this side of the House—who were not entirely pleased to see a council not taking full responsibility for its past conduct.

Although it is absolutely imperative that we do pass this legislation to correct the situation that exists and to make sure that those $600,000 or so worth of retrospectively unpaid rates that currently cannot be legally collected because they were not correctly levied in the first place—to make sure that those $600,000 worth can be collected—I would be very interested to hear from the Minister in the chair, the sponsoring member of this bill, whether there was any information that she might be able to provide the Committee around the breakdown of the annual uniform general charge versus the seven other targeted rates, just so we can get an idea of their relative scale.

Other than that small question, I think this is an excellent, well-drafted piece of legislation. Although it is retrospective it does not have any of the monstrous effects of retrospective legislation such as the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794, which, I think, is held up by many as the gravest example of an evil piece of retrospective legislation. For that reason I take enormous pleasure in commending the bill to the Committee and hope to hear contributions from others on the other side of the Chamber, who so seldom allow a bandwagon to pass them without jumping on board. Rather than having a curtailed debate, rather than having democracy crushed in this Chamber by an Opposition who wants to silence debate on an issue that I think we all agree on, let us hear a meaningful, useful, and decent contribution from Opposition members. Mr Mark did a very good job and I just wish the Labour members could do the same.

I would just like to respond to the questions in terms of the uniform annual general charge. It was correctly stated that there were seven ratings that were irregularly passed—this is on top of the general rating irregularity. Two of them were concerned with the Church Bay sewer loan rate and the Church Bay water loan rate, and it was in terms of the fact that they were a fixed amount per rating unit.

The same thing was also to do with the Governors Bay sewer loan rate and the Governors Bay water loan rate. On top of that they failed to state that there was liability for a restricted water targeted rate and that that was calculated on the level of service through the restricted water supply system. On top of that there were two rates to do with waste minimisation and the fact that they are fixed amounts per rating unit. I think that is probably the key issue here.

Finally, there was a water fire service connection rate. Again, that was calculated on a number of connections, as provided for by the city council’s rating impact statements. Getting to the uniform annual general charge, the key issue here was that they failed to say that it was calculated on the number of separately used or inhabited parts of the rating unit. That was the key issue. These ones here were not the amounts of the rates; it was the fact of how they were to be charged. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise just to spend a few moments actually talking on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I find what we have watched as we have gone through this debate absolutely extraordinary. We have had a conversation earlier where everyone contributed to the debate and now we are on to something that is actually perhaps just a little bit more uncomfortable for the members of the Opposition, particularly those from Canterbury. They do not want to participate in the debate. They walk out. They say that they do not like local bills. Well, local bills deserve the respect of actually being debated. When councils have delivered us something that we have to do retrospectively, it deserves our attention. It deserves us identifying areas that need to be improved, so we do not do this again. The flippant disregard from half of that lot over there, who have disappeared, saying that they do not want to continue the debate is, I think, a disgrace.

Specifically, I would like to talk about some of the components and particularly the clauses in this short and focused but important bill. In particular, I would like to talk about the changes that are included around naming the due dates and the penalties, validating the annual general charge, and, particularly, the seven other targeted rates—the Church Bay sewer loan rate, the Church Bay water loan rate, the Governors Bay sewer loan rate, the Governors Bay water loan rate, the restricted water targeted rate, the waste minimisation rate, the water fire service connection rate, and the uniform annual general charge, which were included specifically in clause 4 of the bill. It was raised as a particular question earlier.

We have had quite a lot of debate today particularly around the process. We heard the Minister answer one question in particular in her immediate comments, when introducing tonight’s conversation, around how the process has improved, particularly with the Christchurch City Council in terms of how it manages its processes internally to ensure that it is at best practice in respect of notifying and setting rates and the process around that.

I just want to echo the importance of this bill sending a message not only to Christchurch but also to other councils around the country, around the Government’s expectation that best practice is followed at all times. We heard from the member Mr Mark, in a very considered and impassioned contribution earlier to this debate, around the provision of run sheets and the importance, specifically, of councils following those. His experience was that this is relatively easy to do, and he was surprised that in this case this city council missed that. Yes, of course there is Audit New Zealand, which can provide a double-check in terms of further confidence. But, quite frankly, this should be picked up in an internal process check that the chief executive officer should oversee, and there should be their own internal controls to make sure that this does not happen.

We should not be put in the position, quite frankly, of having to do this revalidation bill. The council should have had the internal controls in there from day one, particularly when you reflect that this was a changing approach. This was a council that was trying to simplify a process. When you try to simplify a process you change from the status quo. You would assume, therefore, that there was some focus put on the fact that the council was changing what it had done, compared with what it used to do, and would say: “Let us ensure that we have got our ducks lined up and we are doing this correctly in terms of the due process expected of us.” It did not happen, it should happen, and our expectation is that we would not have to be put into this position again.

I do acknowledge the speed with which the Christchurch City Council reacted when this was brought to its attention in the last couple of years. But as has been raised tonight, I was left wanting in respect of the attitude at the submission process by the Christchurch City Council. Maybe I am being a bit harsh, but process improvement can take an organisation only so far. Attitude and culture are important, too. I think that in the context of this bill, and particularly for the Christchurch City Council, this is a point just to reflect on. Yes, you can turn up to a submission process and talk relatively obliquely to the process changes that you have brought in to ensure that it will not happen again. The Christchurch City Council officers can talk to a process improvement, but it is very important that those same officers reflect on the importance of culture in their organisation, to be able to ensure that they do not allow this sort of thing to happen again. We never got the sense of that. We never got the sense that, actually, the Christchurch City Council saw this as an appalling indictment on its own collective approach to managing issues like this. It was seen as: “Well, you know, sometimes these things happen and sometimes the Government, or Parliament, needs to fix them up for us.” It has been raised earlier, and I just want to reinforce that it is something that we were not impressed with.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner. She has brought forward two really important local bills and has managed them through with élan and compassion and focus for her community. Of course, I will echo the support that our chairman, Mr Scott Simpson, has received. He is a great chair, and it is a pleasure to be part of a normally collegial Local Government and Environment Committee, although perhaps there have been cracks tonight. I look forward to seeing this bill pass. Thank you.

Preamble, Parts 1 and 2, schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill without amendment, and the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.