Supreme Court refusal for leave - July 2018
In defiance of the public expectations that the Supreme Court would be the true arbiter of justice in NZ, that court has confirmed that justice has to be seen only in protection of the bureaucracy. The court has refused our request for a hearing to appeal the atrocious judgment of the Court of Appeal. Details of their response following an (expensive) oral hearing can be seen in the bottom folder.
Court of Appeal Judgment March 2018
Yet again the MRRA has been stomped on by one of New Zealand's superior courts.
Our efforts to force local government to operate within the written law as set by statute has failed, and the latest judgment has reinforced the evidence that no matter what local councils do - lawful or not - their actions will be upheld or validated by the judiciary. There is no need for an act of parliament, the courts have shown they will be quite prepared to undertake any validation they feel is necessary or desirable.
This blatant protection of the bureaucracy is an affront to what has always been the fundamental right of citizens to be protected from persecution by the Bill of Rights.
The Court of Appeal's judgment can be found in the Documents folder.
The continuing saga
In light of the action of the NRC in appealing against Justice Duffy's ruling that their rates were invalid and were thus quashed for a five year period, MRRA has taken the option of cross appealing but on a different basis, mainly on the ruling that the interpretation of Section 60 of the LGRA was fundamentally wrong and would effectively remove any possibility of ratepayers objecting to whatever rates demand was made on them. There is no automatic right for anyone to appeal in this way and to do so they must first obtain consent from the relevant judge. We think this is a definite conflict of interest but that's the way the law is structured.
Anyway Duffy J has (perhaps surprisingly) given her consent and our submission has been filed with the Court of Appeal. A copy of the judge's consent can be found in the Documents folder. (if you find documents hard to read there is a zoom option at the bottom of the page; alternatively Ctrl+ will do the same)
In light of the action of the NRC in appealing against Justice Duffy's ruling that their rates were invalid and were thus quashed for a five year period, MRRA has taken the option of cross appealing but on a different basis, mainly on the ruling that the interpretation of Section 60 of the LGRA was fundamentally wrong and would effectively remove any possibility of ratepayers objecting to whatever rates demand was made on them. There is no automatic right for anyone to appeal in this way and to do so they must first obtain consent from the relevant judge. We think this is a definite conflict of interest but that's the way the law is structured.
Anyway Duffy J has (perhaps surprisingly) given her consent and our submission has been filed with the Court of Appeal. A copy of the judge's consent can be found in the Documents folder. (if you find documents hard to read there is a zoom option at the bottom of the page; alternatively Ctrl+ will do the same)
Court of Appeal Hearing 23 Nov 2017
Following the judgment issued by Duffy J in September the NRC decided to lodge an appeal in the Court of Appeal, basically on the premise that the judge was in error in ruling that the rates and penalties procedure of the NRC was wrong and quashing both the rates and the associated penalties for the five year period to 2016. They were suggesting the judge should have simply validated their actions as nobody was prejudiced by them.
The MRRA in response took the opportunity to lodge a cross appeal based on a belief that the judge's ruling in relation to the application of GST and enforcement of penalties was wrong, and that prejudice was indeed inflicted.
Counsel for the NRC sought (and achieved) an urgent hearing to conduct both appeals at the same time.
In the Documents folder you will be able to read the submissions of the parties and judge for yourselves which carries the most merit. The hearing has concluded but a result was not immediately obtained, the Court adjourning for subsequent deliberations. (loading of docs may take a little time so please check back later)
From the point of view of the MRRA this matter is of the greatest importance - not because of the amount of costs that may be awarded but because of the ramifications that will arise if the local authorities are allowed simply to carry on their unlawful practices without regard to their obligation to act in the best interests of their communities. There is a strong feeling that the laxity of the authorities in respect of their observance of the written law shows an arrogant disregard for the rule of law and relegates the ratepayer to an indefensible position. This cannot be allowed to flourish in a true democracy.
Following the judgment issued by Duffy J in September the NRC decided to lodge an appeal in the Court of Appeal, basically on the premise that the judge was in error in ruling that the rates and penalties procedure of the NRC was wrong and quashing both the rates and the associated penalties for the five year period to 2016. They were suggesting the judge should have simply validated their actions as nobody was prejudiced by them.
The MRRA in response took the opportunity to lodge a cross appeal based on a belief that the judge's ruling in relation to the application of GST and enforcement of penalties was wrong, and that prejudice was indeed inflicted.
Counsel for the NRC sought (and achieved) an urgent hearing to conduct both appeals at the same time.
In the Documents folder you will be able to read the submissions of the parties and judge for yourselves which carries the most merit. The hearing has concluded but a result was not immediately obtained, the Court adjourning for subsequent deliberations. (loading of docs may take a little time so please check back later)
From the point of view of the MRRA this matter is of the greatest importance - not because of the amount of costs that may be awarded but because of the ramifications that will arise if the local authorities are allowed simply to carry on their unlawful practices without regard to their obligation to act in the best interests of their communities. There is a strong feeling that the laxity of the authorities in respect of their observance of the written law shows an arrogant disregard for the rule of law and relegates the ratepayer to an indefensible position. This cannot be allowed to flourish in a true democracy.
Candidates Meeting 28 Aug 2017
Report of the meeting from Chairman Bruce can be found in the Documents folder.
Report of the meeting from Chairman Bruce can be found in the Documents folder.
Judgment Day!
On 17 August Judge Duffy at last came out with her judgment on the Judicial Review proceedings against the NRC.
It makes very interesting reading, but in general it agrees with our submissions that the NRC rates for the five year period from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016 were all unlawful and they - together with all relevant penalties - have been quashed (set aside). That means anyone who hasn't paid the rates (and penalties) during that period won't have to. For those who have paid all or part, if they want restitution they will need to bring proceedings to the court as the judge declined to make a general order for refund of the rates and penalties.
Read the judgment on the Documents folder.
On 17 August Judge Duffy at last came out with her judgment on the Judicial Review proceedings against the NRC.
It makes very interesting reading, but in general it agrees with our submissions that the NRC rates for the five year period from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016 were all unlawful and they - together with all relevant penalties - have been quashed (set aside). That means anyone who hasn't paid the rates (and penalties) during that period won't have to. For those who have paid all or part, if they want restitution they will need to bring proceedings to the court as the judge declined to make a general order for refund of the rates and penalties.
Read the judgment on the Documents folder.
Submissions to High Court June 2017
Well the hearing in May took place as scheduled and as is now seemingly customary yet further submissions were called for by the judge. These were to be along the lines of whether Section 120 could (or should) be used to get around the problem of the invalid rates.
In typical fashion NRC counsel (Goddard) made a plea for what amounts to reversal of the interim judgment and basically whitewashing of the unlawful actions of the NRC.
In response our submission maintains that S120 is not available in these circumstances and we repeat our claims for relief as submitted earlier.
These submissions can be seen in the Documents folder.
Surprisingly the NRC has been allowed yet another response to what we say. That response hasn't come to hand as yet.
Well the hearing in May took place as scheduled and as is now seemingly customary yet further submissions were called for by the judge. These were to be along the lines of whether Section 120 could (or should) be used to get around the problem of the invalid rates.
In typical fashion NRC counsel (Goddard) made a plea for what amounts to reversal of the interim judgment and basically whitewashing of the unlawful actions of the NRC.
In response our submission maintains that S120 is not available in these circumstances and we repeat our claims for relief as submitted earlier.
These submissions can be seen in the Documents folder.
Surprisingly the NRC has been allowed yet another response to what we say. That response hasn't come to hand as yet.
Submissions to High Court March 2017
Well we have yet another hearing set down for the High Court, this one (hopefully the last) on 30 May 2017.
Our opponents have requested (and been granted) another oral hearing, this time beefed up with heavier weight counsel.
According to the interim judgment issued by Duffy J the only matter to be decided is the extent of relief to be granted following her judgment in our favour. The councils are wriggling strenuously to try to avoid any relief at all.
Read our final submission in the Documents folder.
Well we have yet another hearing set down for the High Court, this one (hopefully the last) on 30 May 2017.
Our opponents have requested (and been granted) another oral hearing, this time beefed up with heavier weight counsel.
According to the interim judgment issued by Duffy J the only matter to be decided is the extent of relief to be granted following her judgment in our favour. The councils are wriggling strenuously to try to avoid any relief at all.
Read our final submission in the Documents folder.
Letter from Chairman Bruce.
Submission documents can be read in the Documents folder.
Submission documents can be read in the Documents folder.
October 2016
Well the election is over and we now have a part time Mayor and a new 'democratic' Council. The recent appointment of a Crown Manager and a Crown Observer however removes any semblance of true democracy.
Departing Commissioner John Robertson waxes heavily on his success in bringing everything under control. We shall just have to see how effective he has been.
No further news on completion of the judgment by Duffy J. Further submissions have been requested by the judge from NRC followed by our response on the matter of relief.
Well the election is over and we now have a part time Mayor and a new 'democratic' Council. The recent appointment of a Crown Manager and a Crown Observer however removes any semblance of true democracy.
Departing Commissioner John Robertson waxes heavily on his success in bringing everything under control. We shall just have to see how effective he has been.
No further news on completion of the judgment by Duffy J. Further submissions have been requested by the judge from NRC followed by our response on the matter of relief.
High Court Judgment
After what seems a customary long wait for justice Duffy J has issued her judgment with respect to the Judicial Review claim against the validity of the NRC rates. In vindication of the claim that these rates have for a long time been invoiced incorrectly (along with those of the KDC) Judge Duffy has accepted our submissions and it seems this long saga will now be coming to an end.
At this stage the judgment is an interim one as it provides for the parties to come to an agreement regarding the level and type of relief to be granted. When that is done the judgment will be sealed.
The outcome of this action will affect the other matter before the court (appeal against the ruling of De Ridder J in the District Court) and Judge Duffy will now turn her attention to that matter.
The interim judgment can be viewed in the Documents folder.
After what seems a customary long wait for justice Duffy J has issued her judgment with respect to the Judicial Review claim against the validity of the NRC rates. In vindication of the claim that these rates have for a long time been invoiced incorrectly (along with those of the KDC) Judge Duffy has accepted our submissions and it seems this long saga will now be coming to an end.
At this stage the judgment is an interim one as it provides for the parties to come to an agreement regarding the level and type of relief to be granted. When that is done the judgment will be sealed.
The outcome of this action will affect the other matter before the court (appeal against the ruling of De Ridder J in the District Court) and Judge Duffy will now turn her attention to that matter.
The interim judgment can be viewed in the Documents folder.
KDC v OAG
Members and supporters will be aware that we have been keenly interested in trying to understand the submissiveness of the Commissioners in accepting a settlement (out of court) for the abject failings of the auditors in allowing the Ecocare disaster to proceed and thus inflicting a huge and unjustified debt on ratepayers.
The settlement of $5.375m was in our view a mere token gesture and should have been around ten times that figure.
Accordingly we asked both parties if we could see the arguments put forward - both refused. An approach to the High Court however brought more success and we have now been delivered a copy of the case submitted by KDC together with the defence by the Auditor General.
Both documents can be read in the Documents folder.
The arguments bring to mind the process adopted in presentation of the Validation Bill in that the deficiencies are outlined in intimate detail with defensive arguments likewise. It will take a little time to assess the submissions but our opinion will be published once that has been done.
To us it is significant that in reaching the 'settlement' both parties disclaimed any liability relating to the disaster - in other words there is no accountability, despite assertions to the contrary in the Local Govt Act.
One particularly sore point in the case is that the payout of $240,000 to the former CEO Jack McKerchar is now being classed as a 'severance payment', whereas the reason for his resignation was openly published as 'due to ill health'. In our view that should have meant no payout at all was due. We do not know how the case against Mr McKerchar is going (in the Employment Court) as progress information has been refused, except to say the case is 'progressing'. McKerchar resigned nearly five years ago.
Members and supporters will be aware that we have been keenly interested in trying to understand the submissiveness of the Commissioners in accepting a settlement (out of court) for the abject failings of the auditors in allowing the Ecocare disaster to proceed and thus inflicting a huge and unjustified debt on ratepayers.
The settlement of $5.375m was in our view a mere token gesture and should have been around ten times that figure.
Accordingly we asked both parties if we could see the arguments put forward - both refused. An approach to the High Court however brought more success and we have now been delivered a copy of the case submitted by KDC together with the defence by the Auditor General.
Both documents can be read in the Documents folder.
The arguments bring to mind the process adopted in presentation of the Validation Bill in that the deficiencies are outlined in intimate detail with defensive arguments likewise. It will take a little time to assess the submissions but our opinion will be published once that has been done.
To us it is significant that in reaching the 'settlement' both parties disclaimed any liability relating to the disaster - in other words there is no accountability, despite assertions to the contrary in the Local Govt Act.
One particularly sore point in the case is that the payout of $240,000 to the former CEO Jack McKerchar is now being classed as a 'severance payment', whereas the reason for his resignation was openly published as 'due to ill health'. In our view that should have meant no payout at all was due. We do not know how the case against Mr McKerchar is going (in the Employment Court) as progress information has been refused, except to say the case is 'progressing'. McKerchar resigned nearly five years ago.
High Court Hearings
On 16/17 May 2016 we attended the High Court in Whangarei for the double purpose:
(1) to present our appeal against the ridiculous judgment handed down by Judge De Ridder in connection with the prosecution of Bruce and Heather Rogan for non payment of rates (this was the test case with other recalcitrant cases stayed pending this decision);
(2) to present submissions regarding a judicial review of the rating assessments, notices and invoicing by the Northland Regional Council over a long period.
With Justice Ailsa Duffy presiding we were startled that at long last we had a judge who actually listened to the arguments (of both sides), asked many questions and persisted until she had a full understanding of what was being argued. It was also with a great sense of relief for us that her balanced comments seemed to come out somewhat in our favour, indeed some of the respondents' propositions were summarily dismissed as being without foundation in law. J Duffy was insistent that she was there to make judgments on the basis of black letter law and not what uncomfortable effects may result from her decisions.
It needs to be noted that our Counsel Jeremy Browne performed brilliantly on both counts and had a much more impressive grasp of all the matters than did his opponents.
In the circumstances we were satisfied that our cases were presented the best way they could be, the judge likewise acted in the way we expected a judge should and whichever way the results come out we will be content that we could do no better.
For those interested the submissions can all be perused in the Documents folder.
Please do read them and see if you can agree that our arguments are convincing.
On 16/17 May 2016 we attended the High Court in Whangarei for the double purpose:
(1) to present our appeal against the ridiculous judgment handed down by Judge De Ridder in connection with the prosecution of Bruce and Heather Rogan for non payment of rates (this was the test case with other recalcitrant cases stayed pending this decision);
(2) to present submissions regarding a judicial review of the rating assessments, notices and invoicing by the Northland Regional Council over a long period.
With Justice Ailsa Duffy presiding we were startled that at long last we had a judge who actually listened to the arguments (of both sides), asked many questions and persisted until she had a full understanding of what was being argued. It was also with a great sense of relief for us that her balanced comments seemed to come out somewhat in our favour, indeed some of the respondents' propositions were summarily dismissed as being without foundation in law. J Duffy was insistent that she was there to make judgments on the basis of black letter law and not what uncomfortable effects may result from her decisions.
It needs to be noted that our Counsel Jeremy Browne performed brilliantly on both counts and had a much more impressive grasp of all the matters than did his opponents.
In the circumstances we were satisfied that our cases were presented the best way they could be, the judge likewise acted in the way we expected a judge should and whichever way the results come out we will be content that we could do no better.
For those interested the submissions can all be perused in the Documents folder.
Please do read them and see if you can agree that our arguments are convincing.
Case against the Auditor General
On 30 March 2016 an announcement was made that the case against the OAG has been settled out of court, the parties having agreed to mediation in preference to a full court hearing.
Basically the settlement will involve payment of $5,375,000 to KDC (possibly including GST) as recompense for the abysmal performance of the auditor over a period of several years.
It is worth noting however that in agreeing to settle the dispute neither party is admitting any liability.
MRRA considers this settlement incredible for several reasons:
1) Why would the Commissioners agree to mediation in this case when they consistently refused mediation offers from MRRA on numerous occasions
2) The settlement amount is rather paltry considering the 'disappearance' of $30m+ in the Ecocare debacle
3) The Auditor General knew years earlier that things were going wrong yet stubbornly refused to take any action
4) The AG has the statutory responsibility for auditing the accounts of local authorities, yet seems to consider this carries no accountability. If this is the case, why bother with the (significant) expense of having an audit?
On 30 March 2016 an announcement was made that the case against the OAG has been settled out of court, the parties having agreed to mediation in preference to a full court hearing.
Basically the settlement will involve payment of $5,375,000 to KDC (possibly including GST) as recompense for the abysmal performance of the auditor over a period of several years.
It is worth noting however that in agreeing to settle the dispute neither party is admitting any liability.
MRRA considers this settlement incredible for several reasons:
1) Why would the Commissioners agree to mediation in this case when they consistently refused mediation offers from MRRA on numerous occasions
2) The settlement amount is rather paltry considering the 'disappearance' of $30m+ in the Ecocare debacle
3) The Auditor General knew years earlier that things were going wrong yet stubbornly refused to take any action
4) The AG has the statutory responsibility for auditing the accounts of local authorities, yet seems to consider this carries no accountability. If this is the case, why bother with the (significant) expense of having an audit?
Supreme Court Submissions
On 14 March 2016 our initial submissions were forwarded to the court in support of our application for leave to appeal. As respondents KDC have 15 days to submit their response.
See the Documents page for our submissions.
On 14 March 2016 our initial submissions were forwarded to the court in support of our application for leave to appeal. As respondents KDC have 15 days to submit their response.
See the Documents page for our submissions.
Supreme Court
Following the disappointing result from the Court of Appeal the question was asked at our AGM in January as to whether the membership wished us to proceed with a further appeal - this time against the Court of Appeal findings.
This would of course require an appeal to the Supreme Court (together with its associated costs).
The membership was unanimous in giving approval to proceed, so the legal team has beavered away with an application for leave to appeal, which is a necessity when dealing with the highest court. The application was submitted on 12 February.
Before leave is granted there is a maximum of 20 working days in which to prepare full submissions in supporting the application.
It is our belief that we have very strong arguments that the Court of Appeal erred in many instances of understanding and interpretation of the law, and our submissions were either not listened to or just ignored.
You will see some of our reasoning in the application, which can be seen on the Documents page.
Following the disappointing result from the Court of Appeal the question was asked at our AGM in January as to whether the membership wished us to proceed with a further appeal - this time against the Court of Appeal findings.
This would of course require an appeal to the Supreme Court (together with its associated costs).
The membership was unanimous in giving approval to proceed, so the legal team has beavered away with an application for leave to appeal, which is a necessity when dealing with the highest court. The application was submitted on 12 February.
Before leave is granted there is a maximum of 20 working days in which to prepare full submissions in supporting the application.
It is our belief that we have very strong arguments that the Court of Appeal erred in many instances of understanding and interpretation of the law, and our submissions were either not listened to or just ignored.
You will see some of our reasoning in the application, which can be seen on the Documents page.
Court of Appeal
Our approach to the Court of Appeal some time ago for rejection of some of the findings by the High Court last year was duly presented (and attended by a good number of our members).
To our dismay however the appeal was soundly rejected by the Court, the judges choosing to interpret some of the legislation in ways that we believe cannot be justified.
The judgment can be seen on our Documents page.
Our approach to the Court of Appeal some time ago for rejection of some of the findings by the High Court last year was duly presented (and attended by a good number of our members).
To our dismay however the appeal was soundly rejected by the Court, the judges choosing to interpret some of the legislation in ways that we believe cannot be justified.
The judgment can be seen on our Documents page.
de Ridder District Court judgment (Armistice Day ...)
Here it is, and on the face of it it's all bad news. Our legal team however has considered the judgment has many failings - errors in fact, errors in law and errors in understanding.
The decision is being taken therefore to lodge an appeal with the High Court as we believe the law is not being observed as it should be and local government is just being granted absolute powers to act regardless of statutory requirements.
(See Documents page for text of the judgment)
Here it is, and on the face of it it's all bad news. Our legal team however has considered the judgment has many failings - errors in fact, errors in law and errors in understanding.
The decision is being taken therefore to lodge an appeal with the High Court as we believe the law is not being observed as it should be and local government is just being granted absolute powers to act regardless of statutory requirements.
(See Documents page for text of the judgment)
Interview with Vinny Eastwood
Check out the discussion with Vinny about the demise of democracy in local government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rLx4BBGt68
Check out the discussion with Vinny about the demise of democracy in local government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rLx4BBGt68
- And the doco to go with it:
http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/vinny-mr-news-eastwoods-blog/local-governance-corruption-paradigm-episode-2-vinny-eastwood
http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/vinny-mr-news-eastwoods-blog/local-governance-corruption-paradigm-episode-2-vinny-eastwood
Telling it as it is
Bruce spells out to an Auckland audience what is happening with local government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I5WLL1Qytc
Bruce spells out to an Auckland audience what is happening with local government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I5WLL1Qytc
Court of Appeal Hearing 25-26 August 2015
Well the three judges (Harrison, Miller, Cooper) were very attentive for the first day of the hearing, when Dr. Matthew Palmer QC enunciated our case. Frequent questions for clarification were asked and it appeared the judges were fixated on who would bear the result if we won our case - they assumed it would by default be the district ratepayers, so nothing would really be gained. There did not seem to be any recognition that there were several alternative sources of reparation:
1) The perpetrators - Council, Councillors, CEO, senior staff
2) Legal advisers
3) Contractors
4) Audit NZ
5) Auditor General
6) Other Govt departments - Serious Fraud Office, Ombudsman, Police
7) NZ Govt - numerous ministers including the PM
8) Parliament - viz passing of the Validation Bill
9) The lenders
Patient explanations by Dr Palmer were given and there were signs that the judges saw the unjustness of the whole situation but struggled to get past the notion that in the end the ratepayers would have to pay.
On the second day the rebuttal from KDC (via Mr Goddard QC) dwelt heavily on the Protected Transactions defence and claimed that legalised the whole project, and under the LGA KDC was required to budget to meet the (now legal) obligation. The only way they could do that was through the rating system.
In final submission Dr Palmer emphasised that the Protected Transactions clauses (ss 117/118) did not in fact legalise the project, which had been declared unlawful by the High Court. This means that although the obligation is enforceable against the Council (whether lawful or not) the debt created by the unlawful actions remained unlawful, and the Council had no power to rate for an unlawful purpose.
Dr Palmer finally pointed out that the purpose of the action against the Council was not so much about money, rather it is a serious effort to ensure that KDC - and all other local authorities - must act within the relevant laws, as does everybody else. If our cause is lost it would mean that the stipulated requirements eg for consultation prior to significant undertakings - and perhaps the Act itself - may be superfluous as TLAs would be able to ignore the requirements with impunity.
As expected Judgment was reserved and we will all have to wait to see how successful we were.
Well the three judges (Harrison, Miller, Cooper) were very attentive for the first day of the hearing, when Dr. Matthew Palmer QC enunciated our case. Frequent questions for clarification were asked and it appeared the judges were fixated on who would bear the result if we won our case - they assumed it would by default be the district ratepayers, so nothing would really be gained. There did not seem to be any recognition that there were several alternative sources of reparation:
1) The perpetrators - Council, Councillors, CEO, senior staff
2) Legal advisers
3) Contractors
4) Audit NZ
5) Auditor General
6) Other Govt departments - Serious Fraud Office, Ombudsman, Police
7) NZ Govt - numerous ministers including the PM
8) Parliament - viz passing of the Validation Bill
9) The lenders
Patient explanations by Dr Palmer were given and there were signs that the judges saw the unjustness of the whole situation but struggled to get past the notion that in the end the ratepayers would have to pay.
On the second day the rebuttal from KDC (via Mr Goddard QC) dwelt heavily on the Protected Transactions defence and claimed that legalised the whole project, and under the LGA KDC was required to budget to meet the (now legal) obligation. The only way they could do that was through the rating system.
In final submission Dr Palmer emphasised that the Protected Transactions clauses (ss 117/118) did not in fact legalise the project, which had been declared unlawful by the High Court. This means that although the obligation is enforceable against the Council (whether lawful or not) the debt created by the unlawful actions remained unlawful, and the Council had no power to rate for an unlawful purpose.
Dr Palmer finally pointed out that the purpose of the action against the Council was not so much about money, rather it is a serious effort to ensure that KDC - and all other local authorities - must act within the relevant laws, as does everybody else. If our cause is lost it would mean that the stipulated requirements eg for consultation prior to significant undertakings - and perhaps the Act itself - may be superfluous as TLAs would be able to ignore the requirements with impunity.
As expected Judgment was reserved and we will all have to wait to see how successful we were.
KDC response to our Court of Appeal claim
Submission of Auditor General
Comprehensive response from KDC denying validity of our claim.
Also submission from Auditor General denying our Bill of Rights argument.
Read both of these on the Documents page.
Submission of Auditor General
Comprehensive response from KDC denying validity of our claim.
Also submission from Auditor General denying our Bill of Rights argument.
Read both of these on the Documents page.
Court of Appeal hearing 25-26 August 2015
On 31 July our final submissions were filed with the court and served on KDC as respondent.
The claim is based on three main (but highly significant) issues of law arising from the rather inadequate judgment given by Justice Heath last year:
1) A local authority has no power to rate for the purpose of funding unlawful expenditure, despite the Protected Transactions provisions of the Local Govt Act;
2) The Validation Act only validated legal defects as identified in the relevant document;
3) KDC acted unlawfully in promoting the Validation Bill to deny ratepayers their rights under the Bill of Rights.
Full content of the submissions can be found on the Documents page.
The claim is based on three main (but highly significant) issues of law arising from the rather inadequate judgment given by Justice Heath last year:
1) A local authority has no power to rate for the purpose of funding unlawful expenditure, despite the Protected Transactions provisions of the Local Govt Act;
2) The Validation Act only validated legal defects as identified in the relevant document;
3) KDC acted unlawfully in promoting the Validation Bill to deny ratepayers their rights under the Bill of Rights.
Full content of the submissions can be found on the Documents page.
District Court Hearing 30 June - 1 July 2015
The hearing took place before Judge de Ridder at the Whangarei Courthouse as planned - except that about 25 people who attended could not be admitted due to lack of space. This was even though the court had been warned of likely numbers.
Without going into detail, it would seem that presentations were made as expected with KDC claiming the right to collect outstanding rates (and penalties) and saying the defendants (Bruce and Heather Rogan) were just nit-pickers attempting to defeat the course of justice. Our counsel Jeremy Browne was forceful in pointing out the huge number of instances where KDC had not complied with their statutory obligations and the Rogans were simply asking for the law to apply to both sides of the argument.
Further representations were made on the second day, following which Judge de Ridder reserved his judgment to be issued at some date in the future.
With our Court of Appeal hearing set down for late August it now seems likely the District Court judgment may not be issued until after that; in fact if the Appeal Court rules in our favour the District Court proceedings could be nullified.
We wait with hopeful expectation that the laws as set down in the statutes are applied impartially and we can all turn our energies to more productive pursuits.
For our Statement of Defence visit our Documents page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing took place before Judge de Ridder at the Whangarei Courthouse as planned - except that about 25 people who attended could not be admitted due to lack of space. This was even though the court had been warned of likely numbers.
Without going into detail, it would seem that presentations were made as expected with KDC claiming the right to collect outstanding rates (and penalties) and saying the defendants (Bruce and Heather Rogan) were just nit-pickers attempting to defeat the course of justice. Our counsel Jeremy Browne was forceful in pointing out the huge number of instances where KDC had not complied with their statutory obligations and the Rogans were simply asking for the law to apply to both sides of the argument.
Further representations were made on the second day, following which Judge de Ridder reserved his judgment to be issued at some date in the future.
With our Court of Appeal hearing set down for late August it now seems likely the District Court judgment may not be issued until after that; in fact if the Appeal Court rules in our favour the District Court proceedings could be nullified.
We wait with hopeful expectation that the laws as set down in the statutes are applied impartially and we can all turn our energies to more productive pursuits.
For our Statement of Defence visit our Documents page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not alone - similar problems faced by a kindred source
The Western Ward (BOP) Residents and Ratepayers Assn latest editorial (June 2015):
Well we have all just experienced the biggest farce this side of the black stump. The so called public consultation for the LONG TERM PLAN was a total waste of time and effort to all those who made the effort to participate.
What has our local body got in keeping with FIFA ?
CORRUPTION !!!!!
I would be the last person to accuse the Mayor or Councilors of financial corruption but it is most certainly ‘Moral Corruption’. This Council with its Mayor, Councilors and Staff have proved to be totally dishonest in all their practices, as it has been proven that all those projects outlined in the Long Term Plan were set in concrete long before the
consultation process even began.
If this Council thinks that it has pulled the wool over the eyes of its poor suffering ratepayers then think again. All this information can be proved as because of Government Legislation all decisions have to be made available to the public. This Council goes out of its way to secret its business but members of our Committee have the necessary know how and perseverance that can ferret out the information. It is therefore our responsibility as a ratepayer group to ensure that all ratepayers are aware of the actions of their local council.
The cycle tracks were decided on and budgeted at a meeting held on the 13th August 2014 and budgeted not $3M as stated in the LTP but $3M > $5M. So why did they consult with the public?
The works on the Fire Station were decided on in December 2014 and the designs confirmed, consents issued and tenders were called for the works. I found it amusing to see the photo in the KK Advertiser and the wonderful smiles on the faces of the protagonists involved. If this had been above board and the consultations genuine then I am sure the works would not have proceeded.
Keep an eye on this project as I have not doubt that ‘the devil is in the detail’. I have no doubt that the $380K works contract will blow out to ‘whatever it costs’. I met recently with the Chairman of the Mangawhai Ratepayers Assoc and their Lawyer as this is exactly what happened to them. The tender price has little or no relevance on the completed cost as details in the tender documents will be in no doubt be drawn up to protect the Contractor. As you know as well as me that its all OK ,
because those poor ignorant [peasants] ratepayers will pay for it. At least a blow out on the Fire Station wont be as bad as the Mangawhai Sewerage Scheme but it is the principal of the action.
Watch this space. We will keep you up with the progress and costings.
On reflection it would appear that the actions and policies of the WBOPDC are allied to the United Nations ‘AGENDA 21’.
To a lot of you this will go completely over your head but the threat of Agenda 21 to our way of living in this country is definitely a threat. This threat is not a conspiracy but a cancer forced on us by the Government in Wellington.
I will go into this subject in greater depth in a further article in this Newsletter.
Everyone needs to be aware that our friends the United Nations are a greater threat to us than ISIS will ever be.
I am looking forward to Council adopting our RATES FREEZE petition but likened to the cost of rates—’Pigs might Fly’.
We as ratepayers are living under Local Body tyranny. The robber barons working in concert together in the building in Barkes Corner plot to spend resources they don’t have for what reason, I am yet to work that out. Talk to other ratepayers in other areas and their problems are the same as ours. Over spending on grand projects and a lack of basic services.
I leave you with this thought; ‘The pen is mightier than the sword’. And we have no intention of running out of ink!
Selwyn L Hill—Chairman
The Western Ward (BOP) Residents and Ratepayers Assn latest editorial (June 2015):
Well we have all just experienced the biggest farce this side of the black stump. The so called public consultation for the LONG TERM PLAN was a total waste of time and effort to all those who made the effort to participate.
What has our local body got in keeping with FIFA ?
CORRUPTION !!!!!
I would be the last person to accuse the Mayor or Councilors of financial corruption but it is most certainly ‘Moral Corruption’. This Council with its Mayor, Councilors and Staff have proved to be totally dishonest in all their practices, as it has been proven that all those projects outlined in the Long Term Plan were set in concrete long before the
consultation process even began.
If this Council thinks that it has pulled the wool over the eyes of its poor suffering ratepayers then think again. All this information can be proved as because of Government Legislation all decisions have to be made available to the public. This Council goes out of its way to secret its business but members of our Committee have the necessary know how and perseverance that can ferret out the information. It is therefore our responsibility as a ratepayer group to ensure that all ratepayers are aware of the actions of their local council.
The cycle tracks were decided on and budgeted at a meeting held on the 13th August 2014 and budgeted not $3M as stated in the LTP but $3M > $5M. So why did they consult with the public?
The works on the Fire Station were decided on in December 2014 and the designs confirmed, consents issued and tenders were called for the works. I found it amusing to see the photo in the KK Advertiser and the wonderful smiles on the faces of the protagonists involved. If this had been above board and the consultations genuine then I am sure the works would not have proceeded.
Keep an eye on this project as I have not doubt that ‘the devil is in the detail’. I have no doubt that the $380K works contract will blow out to ‘whatever it costs’. I met recently with the Chairman of the Mangawhai Ratepayers Assoc and their Lawyer as this is exactly what happened to them. The tender price has little or no relevance on the completed cost as details in the tender documents will be in no doubt be drawn up to protect the Contractor. As you know as well as me that its all OK ,
because those poor ignorant [peasants] ratepayers will pay for it. At least a blow out on the Fire Station wont be as bad as the Mangawhai Sewerage Scheme but it is the principal of the action.
Watch this space. We will keep you up with the progress and costings.
On reflection it would appear that the actions and policies of the WBOPDC are allied to the United Nations ‘AGENDA 21’.
To a lot of you this will go completely over your head but the threat of Agenda 21 to our way of living in this country is definitely a threat. This threat is not a conspiracy but a cancer forced on us by the Government in Wellington.
I will go into this subject in greater depth in a further article in this Newsletter.
Everyone needs to be aware that our friends the United Nations are a greater threat to us than ISIS will ever be.
I am looking forward to Council adopting our RATES FREEZE petition but likened to the cost of rates—’Pigs might Fly’.
We as ratepayers are living under Local Body tyranny. The robber barons working in concert together in the building in Barkes Corner plot to spend resources they don’t have for what reason, I am yet to work that out. Talk to other ratepayers in other areas and their problems are the same as ours. Over spending on grand projects and a lack of basic services.
I leave you with this thought; ‘The pen is mightier than the sword’. And we have no intention of running out of ink!
Selwyn L Hill—Chairman