Ed Said - Rates saga still far from over

 

It’s interesting to say the least that, while Justice Heath delivered an interim verdict, both parties seem to have translated said result quite differently. We all understand that nothing is confirmed until the final extended and a more fully explained version is given BUT he has outlined what, I believe, should be seen as something akin to that and should be accepted as such at the time.

The Judge ruled basically: „ The rates validation passed by Parliament means they are valid and should be paid. „ The MRRA should be awarded costs. „ The Council should discuss with their creditors the possibility of an alternative method of loan repayment. „ The way is still open to bring charges against those they felt responsible for the debt.

The Commissioners are saying the rates are now legal and enforceable and while some in arrears have come to the party there is still a hard core standing their ground.

Denial by either party or expansion into what each ‘thinks’ or ‘hopes’ the learned Judge ‘might’ mean are only causing more friction and uncertainty. This was always going to be a complex issue as the Judge commented at the completion of court proceedings, with potential ripples spreading throughout the country as a result so no final decisions were going to be made hurriedly.

Then has come the break in concentration as Justice Heath has been called to preside over the Canterbury Finance affair while at the same time endeavouring to clarify a number of finer points of the Kaipara issue and their relevance to the big picture.

A teleconference last Wednesday to discuss any points arising from the interim decision made little progress and in fact the MRRA has filed a ‘protective’ appeal against Justice Heath’s interim judgement claiming he erred by upholding the Validation of Rates and Other Matters Bill. The MRRA seeks to set aside the High Court’s provisional decision and the protective nature means if there is no change to said judgement, the position of the MRRA remains unchanged.

Protective it may be, but it simply means ratepayers generally are up for considerably more costs over a considerably longer period with no guarantee that they will get what they want or accept what they are given.

Meanwhile the Council has pressed ahead with the Annual Plan and debt management until or unless there is any decision reversal.

The Court has indicated that it wishes now to hold a formal hearing (as opposed to another teleconference) and this is set down for Friday July 18. The venue is set at Christchurch in deference to issues that Judge Heath and both sets of Counsel currently have.

Could this perhaps be some light at the end of the tunnel or will it be just more tunnel at the end of the light?

---