Review is council's only gift on rates

By BERNARD ORSMAN

Most Auckland Regional councillors refused to budge yesterday at an extraordinary meeting called to discuss its controversial rating system.

The council threw out a proposal to reset the rates by seven votes to four, but voted six to five in favour of urgently reviewing the penalty dates and paying by instalment.

The review is the only concession made by the council after a month-long rates revolt by homeowners.

Councillors also went against legal advice from law firms Bell Gully and Simpson Grierson that the ARC could not introduce instalments or delay penalties.

Trevor Kamins of Half Moon Bay, whose ARC rates have risen 707 per cent from $209.65 to $1483.96, left the meeting in frustration.

"These people are fiddling while Rome burns. They are arguing about the 10 per cent penalty when they need to reset the rates," he said.

ARC chairwoman Gwen Bull, who voted against resetting the rates and reviewing the penalties and options for instalments, later said she hoped the meeting gave people the chance to have a say.

"I would like to think out of this that we can ... put all this nonsense behind us and get on with what we have to do to make this region prosper and grow, clean up and get the transport happening," she said.

Four groups addressed the ARC, two in favour and two against the rating system.

David Thornton, of the Resident Ratepayers Rebellion group, said the reasons for the rates revolt were the unfairness of the system and the ARC blaming everyone except itself for the huge increases.

He said 22,000 ratepayers who had not paid their rates by the first penalty date would snowball to nearly 100,000, leaving the ARC unable to govern.

"This campaign will go on and more and more people will not pay."

But Alasdair Thompson, of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), said the ARC must be given credit for deciding against a differential on businesses, saying there was no evidence to support the idea that businesses had a greater ability to pay than others.

He was also speaking on behalf of the Property Council and Heart of the City retail organisation.

"We find it deplorable that some Auckland mayors, a minority of councillors, the Minister for Auckland and even the Prime Minister have chosen to engage in populist politics over these issues.

"It's been an eye-opener to see them unashamedly try to curry favour with residential ratepayers," said Mr Thompson.

Federated Farmers and Auckland City Residents and Ratepayers also addressed the meeting.

Bell Gully's David McGregor said his firm and Simpson Grierson did not believe that under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 the ARC could alter rates conditions.

The act said a council could reset rates if there was a "relevant change in circumstances".

Mr McGregor said this was a new phrase, not defined in the act or considered by the courts. It required a relevant change to an important matter considered and taken into account at the time of the original exercise of power.

Some councillors disagreed, including Mike Lee, who said the "change in circumstances" clause was plain English and meant to give councils flexibility.

Councillor Paul Walbran said there was a strong case to urgently look at resetting the rates, particularly by adopting a business differential. This was lost 7-4.

But the ARC decided to test the legal advice when voting 6-5 for a Sandra Coney amendment to review penalty dates and instalment options.

Tell us what you think about the rates increases:
* Email the Herald News Desk