Rotorua Daily Post
  • Rotorua Daily Post home
  • Latest news
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Lifestyle
  • Property
  • Sport
  • Video
  • Death notices
  • Classifieds

Subscriptions

  • Herald Premium
  • Viva Premium
  • The Listener
  • BusinessDesk

Sections

  • Latest news
  • On The Up
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Lifestyle
    • All Lifestyle
    • Residential property listings
  • Property
    • All Property
    • Dairy farming
    • Sheep & beef farming
    • Horticulture
    • Animal health
    • Rural business
    • Rural life
    • Rural technology
  • Rural
  • Sport

Locations

  • Tauranga
  • Te Puke
  • Whakatāne
  • Rotorua
  • Tokoroa
  • Taupō & Tūrangi

Media

  • Video
  • Photo galleries
  • Today's Paper - E-Editions
  • Photo sales

Weather

  • Rotorua
  • Tauranga
  • Whakatāne
  • Tokoroa
  • Taupō

NZME Network

  • Advertise with NZME
  • OneRoof
  • Driven Car Guide
  • BusinessDesk
  • Newstalk ZB
  • What the Actual
  • Sunlive
  • ZM
  • The Hits
  • Coast
  • Radio Hauraki
  • The Alternative Commentary Collective
  • Gold
  • Flava
  • iHeart Radio
  • Hokonui
  • Radio Wanaka
  • iHeartCountry New Zealand
  • Restaurant Hub
  • NZME Events

SubscribeSign In
Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.
Home / Rotorua Daily Post

Comment: Fair and equitable rating claim a mystery

Rotorua Daily Post
5 Dec, 2011 05:00 PM6 mins to read

Subscribe to listen

Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen.
Already a subscriber?  Sign in here

Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech.
‌
Save

    Share this article

Rotorua accountant, tax practitioner and business advisor Len Watson provides another view on the city council's decision to consider moving to a capital value rating system.



I note with interest, the recent Daily Post article on the subject of Capital Value (CV) rating, written by former Rotorua District Council corporate services manager, Jack Shallard. This follows on from an earlier report that council is yet again giving consideration to a CV system. Given that considerable debate was held on this subject back in 2008 and that our rating laws have not changed since, I question why council should once again be delving into the labyrinth of arguments for and against CV rating.

Back in 2008, I presented a lengthy and detailed submission on the subject, a submission that was the culmination of many hours of research (including a review of our rating legislation and the 2007 released report of the Government appointed Shand Committee on the NZ rating system, and a detailed review and analysis of information contained in council's rating database).

Contrary to Mr Shallard's assertion in his article, my review and submissions were not to "sabotage" the review process, nor was it based "on self interest, lack of understanding of the issues, and intimidation of our elected members". Such inappropriate comments demonstrate a total disrespect for the rights of others to hold and articulate different points of view, even where those points of view might arise from self-interest.

Mr Shallard asserts that rates are a tax and that the application of a CV based method of allocating the rates impost among ratepayers is "fair, equitable and a principled system". How he comes to these positions is something of a mystery.

Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.
Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.



Many consider that rates are a charge for services and facilities provided by councils and, with respect to residential ratepayers, we should each bear close to an equal burden - a poll "tax".

However, this method of charging rates is not provided for in our rating laws.

These laws do not suggest (directly or indirectly), that rates are a tax (and to which presumably, taxation principles might apply). Instead, the Local Government Act 2002 and its companion Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, sets out the need for a rate to be levied and prescribes a somewhat restricted (and I would argue, anachronistic) set of rules to determine how this is to be done (a system that is largely based on property values).

There is also no provision in rating legislation for councils to apply "ability to pay" concepts in allocating the rates impost, or to apply other welfare type concepts to their exercise.

Welfare considerations are the province of Central Government alone which it applies via a wide range of benefits and assistance packages (including with respect to property costs, accommodation supplements and rates rebates).



In my 2008 submissions I suggested to council that before tinkering with the system in place, it should set out as part of its rating policy, just what principles it wishes to apply when levying rates.

These rating principles should be significantly more than the simple use of the word "fair" (and such like) given that on its own, the word means absolutely nothing.

These rating principles would set out the degree by which fairness is to be based on incomes, property assets owned (what about their mortgages?), the number of persons residing in each rating unit, the age of ratepayers, the types of ratepayers (individuals, families, apartment occupiers, retailers, manufacturers, farmers, tourism business) etc.

However, if fairness is a function of the "ability to pay" principle (based on incomes), then council does not have the tools to consider this (such criteria are not specifically provided for in our rating laws and of course, councils do not hold, or have access to, information about the incomes of ratepayers and their families). Further, CV is not a measure of "ability to pay". In the words of the report of the Shand Committee:

One might reasonably conclude that there is a broad relationship between rates based on property values and ability to pay. There is, however, an important caveat: these relationships are far from perfect (emphasis added). Consequently, the use of property values to set rates can result in horizontal inequity, because some households on similar incomes own properties of markedly different value and, therefore, pay quite different rates and vertical inequity, because some households with markedly different incomes own properties of similar values, and hence pay similar rates.

Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.

In demonstration of this issue, in my 2008 submissions I quoted a "Letter to the Editor" published in the Daily Post at the time, in which the correspondent said, when commenting on a likely 25 per cent increase in rates with the then proposed introduction of CV rating:

"Fact: We are a retired couple in our mid seventies, living in our own home. We have saved throughout our lives to have a nice home in retirement. Our house is above the average Rotorua value but not excessively. We have one car. Our main income is National Superannuation.

"Comparison: In our street lives a family of five. Three adults in full time work, one beneficiary and one child. Their land value is the same as ours but they live in a lower quality home. They own three cars. Their rates do not change. However, compared to us they have three incomes and one benefit; sewerage [use] two time ours; water [use] two or three times ours; rubbish [creation] two times ours; road use five to six times ours. How on earth can you consider that this situation is fair?"

To date, as far as I am aware, council has not taken up my suggestion to include credible principles within its rating policy.

These comments refer to the matter of residential rates only. There are significantly more complex issues to consider when trying to apply the principle of fairness to business, farmers, community groups, utilities providers and other groupings.

So before council again promotes a change to CV, it should first spell out in detail its rating principles and be sure that it has the ability to apply those principles.



If it can't (and I suggest that this will be so, especially if it wishes to hold to an "ability to pay" principle), then it should give this intended review a miss and save us ratepayers further unnecessary costs. Should the day come when Parliament provides councils with better rating tools then, by all means, review the system in order to achieve an allocation result that will satisfy the rating principles that we, the ratepayers, agree with.

Otherwise, tinkering around with CV and Land Value (LV) based systems will do little more than (in the words of the Shand Committee) apply the two equity principles in a "far from perfect" manner.

A change to CV would simply create winners and losers - not fairness!

Save

    Share this article

Latest from Rotorua Daily Post

Rotorua Daily Post

'Taken far too soon': Crash victim who died just weeks from 3rd birthday named

23 May 05:00 AM
Rotorua Daily Post

Do not pass Go: Farmer, 75, must report to jail after losing appeal

23 May 04:00 AM
Rotorua Daily Post

Bay of Plenty traffic expert defends te reo signs

23 May 02:00 AM

The Hire A Hubby hero turning handyman stereotypes on their head

sponsored
Advertisement
Advertise with NZME.
Recommended for you
Hurricanes v Reds: 'Canes eye top four
Super Rugby

Hurricanes v Reds: 'Canes eye top four

23 May 09:25 AM
How two rugby stars are reshaping the women's game
Rugby

How two rugby stars are reshaping the women's game

23 May 08:37 AM
'Can't stop our motion': Run It Straight CEO on cancelled events
New Zealand

'Can't stop our motion': Run It Straight CEO on cancelled events

23 May 08:25 AM
'No other persons sought': Homicide probe continues over 77yo man's death
New Zealand

'No other persons sought': Homicide probe continues over 77yo man's death

23 May 08:00 AM
'Unforgettable': Popular Akl restaurant to close after 'sensational' run
Entertainment

'Unforgettable': Popular Akl restaurant to close after 'sensational' run

23 May 08:00 AM

Latest from Rotorua Daily Post

'Taken far too soon': Crash victim who died just weeks from 3rd birthday named

'Taken far too soon': Crash victim who died just weeks from 3rd birthday named

23 May 05:00 AM

'This loss is not only profoundly painful - it is unimaginable.'

Do not pass Go: Farmer, 75, must report to jail after losing appeal

Do not pass Go: Farmer, 75, must report to jail after losing appeal

23 May 04:00 AM
Bay of Plenty traffic expert defends te reo signs

Bay of Plenty traffic expert defends te reo signs

23 May 02:00 AM
'Incredibly excited': Red Cross Shop returns, seeks community support

'Incredibly excited': Red Cross Shop returns, seeks community support

22 May 10:00 PM
Gold demand soars amid global turmoil
sponsored

Gold demand soars amid global turmoil

NZ Herald
  • About NZ Herald
  • Meet the journalists
  • Newsletters
  • Classifieds
  • Help & support
  • Contact us
  • House rules
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Competition terms & conditions
  • Our use of AI
Subscriber Services
  • Rotorua Daily Post e-edition
  • Manage your print subscription
  • Manage your digital subscription
  • Subscribe to Herald Premium
  • Subscribe to the Rotorua Daily Post
  • Gift a subscription
  • Subscriber FAQs
  • Subscription terms & conditions
  • Promotions and subscriber benefits
NZME Network
  • Rotorua Daily Post
  • The New Zealand Herald
  • The Northland Age
  • The Northern Advocate
  • Waikato Herald
  • Bay of Plenty Times
  • Hawke's Bay Today
  • Whanganui Chronicle
  • Viva
  • NZ Listener
  • What the Actual
  • Newstalk ZB
  • BusinessDesk
  • OneRoof
  • Driven CarGuide
  • iHeart Radio
  • Restaurant Hub
NZME
  • About NZME
  • NZME careers
  • Advertise with NZME
  • Digital self-service advertising
  • Book your classified ad
  • Photo sales
  • NZME Events
  • © Copyright 2025 NZME Publishing Limited
TOP
search by queryly Advanced Search