Rudman's city: Navy's grudge fight helps no one but the lawyers

The Navy might not be able to carry our soldiers off to war, but it sure can carry a grudge.

Just ask its Devonport neighbours.

Two years after North Shore residents stymied the Navy's plan to sell its 112-year-old Narrow Neck defence base, the admirals are still trying to get their own back.

One High Court counter-attack has already foundered but, unwilling to accept another defeat, the matelots are dragging the North Shore City Council to the Court of Appeal.

In a sane world, the Government would have stepped in and told the Navy to stop being bad losers. To say nothing of being wasters of public money.

But so far, all Mayor George Wood has received from Prime Minister Helen Clark and Defence Minister Mark Burton in response to his calls for help have been brief letters of acknowledgment.

The Gilbertian - High Court Master Anne Gambrill's word - farce was sparked off by the impoverished Navy's decision, four years ago, to put up for sale the 11.2ha, $26 million slice of prime Gulf-view real estate.

A group of residents challenged the sale, claiming it was crown reserve. Then-Conservation Minister Nick Smith supported the Navy.

Justice Noel Anderson backed the local people, ruling that the land had formally been declared a defence reserve in 1921.

In November 1989, on the eve of a general election and under pressure from North Shore MPs, local politicians and local voters, Mr Smith dropped plans for an appeal.

The Navy, though, was not going to walk away without bloodying a few local noses. Unable to get a cash injection by selling the land, it demanded that North Shore City pay back the $3,607,324 it had paid in rates since June 1989. It also wanted interest on top.

The Navy's justification for its claim was ingenious. Having just argued and lost the case that the land was not reserve land and never had been, the sailors jumped ship and joined the other side.

They argued that because the land was reserve land and always had been, the North Shore had illegally levied rates on them and they wanted the money back.

June 1989 was chosen as the starting point because that was when the Rating Powers Act came in, exempting crown reserves from rates.

Before that the Navy, under Treasury instructions, had made voluntary grants in lieu of rates. From June 1989 onwards, North Shore City had happily levied rates on the Narrow Neck land and the Navy had willingly paid.

Last October, the Navy tried to convince Master Gambrill that it was the wronged party and that the council should give back the rates.

In her March 27 judgment, Master Gambrill remains unconvinced, awarding costs to North Shore and telling the sailors that if they want to pursue the issue, to seek a judicial review.

Instead, the Navy intends to appeal against Master Gambrill's decision.

Why the Government allows this nonsense to continue beats me. Surely it can see that the only winner in a battle between ratepayers and taxpayers is going to be the lawyers.

Can I recommend Master Gambrill's concluding words to the politicians and the admirals?

"The Crown's clear intent, whatever the mistake, was to pay the rates on the property and it advised the defendant accordingly and indeed paid the rates subject to and in accordance with both Treasury directive and then on the demands.

"If equitable principles are to come into play it seems an unusual situation that a small group of individuals should bear the loss and responsibility for the Crown's mistake to unjustly enrich the Crown because of a 'change in circumstance'."

This case had the image, she said, of two statutory authorities "fighting one another for a share of the cake." The people ending up paying the costs would be "the taxpayer who is the ratepayer."

The pity is, no one is listening.