New Plymouth District Council rates blunder caused by lack of financial reporting knowledge
Photo:
Taupō District Council / Supplied
An external review following a
New Plymouth District Council rates GST blunder
- which could've cost it $20 million in lost revenue - indicates key managers may not have a sufficiently sophisticated understanding of the rating process and its impacts.
The Simpson Grierson review found the council lacked financial reporting and modelling capability which "strongly suggests a need for training, and possibly recruitment/restructure and training".
Council chief executive Gareth Green conceded an earlier restructure - which saved the district council $10 million - played a part in the error.
"That necessitated some significant pressure being applied through the business.
"I think that pressure along with other pressure points in the local government sector has contributed to this [mistake] occurring, so certainly the pressure that restructure has applied has had an impact, most definitely."
He was instigating another restructure designed to bring more financial and local government experience to council staff.
Green said this would result in a "small number of job losses" due to new positions being created.
He wasn't thinking about falling on his sword.
"I do take full responsibility for this, but I am not tendering my resignation at the current time.
"My total focus at this point is leading this organisation through this situation and making sure we can resolve it in the best possible way."
The Simpson Grierson review also
uncovered two further bungles
.
It revealed the council hiked average residential rates 12.8 percent rather than 9.9 percent as advertised.
The gaffe equated to $102 per ratepayer or $3.1 million.
The review also identified an annual plan wording error relating to industrial water use which could've cost council a further $1.4 million in lost revenue.
In his report, consultant Jonathan Salter said sophisticated knowledge and understanding of the rating process and rating impacts tended to be the domain of specialist officers with a long-standing understanding of the rating function.
These staff were usually intimately familiar with the council's financial reporting and modelling systems, the valuation and rating information database and the district itself, he said.
"There appears to have been a lack of capability in these two areas. This strongly suggests a need for training, and possibly recruitment/restructure and training."
New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom.
Photo:
RNZ / Robin Martin
Mayor Neil Holdom said one reason why he called for an independent review when the GST error was discovered was so council could learn from its mistakes.
"I just want to make it clear the councillors - the governance team - made decisions based on information that was incorrect.
"Our long-term plan was audited by Audit NZ and they also didn't pick up this error in our rating calculation model."
Holdom said the proposed restructure would bolster the financial capability and bring people onboard council with local government experience.
The Simpson Grierson report also recommended an independent legal review be a component of the annual rate setting process, and that council not rely on the Audit NZ review alone.
Holdom said an extra-ordinary meeting on 22 July would consider a proposal for future annual-plan and long-term plan calculations to be externally peer reviewed as part of a parcel of steps to address the recent errors.
Salter also wanted the council to review how it handled documents.
"It appears that document management may have been an issue ... the restricted water supply targeted rate issue appears to have arisen from an incorrect 'cut and paste' from another document."
Holdom earlier described the GST blunder as a "typo" and a "cut and paste" error.
The Simpson Grierson consultant also thought council should consider moving away from an average residential rates model to an overall rates model.
"This would be a more transparent and certain disclosure. If there is reference to the 'average' rather than 'overall' rates increase, this concept should be defined."
At the extraordinary council meeting on 22 July, the mayor would recommend councillors approve a one-off rates refund to all residential property owners to ensure the average residential rates increase equalled 9.9 percent.
That would require council to find $3.1 million in savings elsewhere.
Councillors would also vote on amending the rates resolution wording regarding properties on a restricted water flow - usually industrial users - to ensure council was able to charge $418 for each cubic metre of water as intended.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
11 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Property investors: It's not time to break up yet
Investors buying older properties might do them up which leads to economic activity in terms of providing work for builders and trades people, Jeremy Williamson says. Photo: RNZ / REECE BAKER Calls for New Zealanders to break up with property investment and focus instead on investing in more productive assets such as growth companies are missing the point, says an economist at one property investment firm. Jeremy Williamson, head of private wealth and markets at Craigs Investment Partners, said there was momentum building for a move away from the country's "love affair with property and property investing". "New Zealand is always going to have an affinity with property investment but there are so many benefits for us as a country if we can turn the dial away from it, into more productive parts of the economy." He pointed to the returns that were possible from investing in the sharemarket. "If you put $100 into a New Zealand house 30 years ago it would be worth nearly $600. If you put it in New Zealand shares, it would be $1100." But Ed McKnight, property economist at Opes Partners, said that was ignoring the power of leverage. Because people only put a deposit in to the purchase of a property, and borrow the rest, it can mean bigger returns. "If you compare a standard property index or prices to shares, shares increase in value faster than houses. But houses can help you grow your wealth faster than shares… it comes down to the debt, the mortgage. "It's a double-edged sword. Whenever you use a mortgage to invest, whether in a house or business it makes your returns larger, which can either be good if the value increases, or it can be bad if the value decreases. "That's the reason why, if you put a 20 percent deposit into a house and your house value goes down by 20 percent you've lost your entire deposit at least on paper until the asset recovers in price. "But if you put 20 percent into a house and the value goes up 20 percent, you've doubled your money. I call it the mortgage magnifier effect. The bigger the mortgage you use, the larger your return compared to the market return. "So property doesn't go up in value as fast but it can be a better wealth builder because you can borrow against it." He said it was also not accurate to say that property was not a productive investment. While it would not grow the economy if an investor bought a house and sat on it, he said, people who were buying new were encouraging economic activity. "The builder or developer is taking an older house and building a new one, it drives the economy forward. You have people building houses and nice, new, warm dry homes for tenants. "Even if you are buying old properties, many investors do them up. That's economic activity, taking something that might be a bit run down and you're improving the quality of the New Zealand housing stock, you're spending money at Bunnings or Mitre 10, it means plumbers and electricians get jobs. It's not true to say property investors don't add anything to the economy." He said simply buying and selling existing shares did not add to the economy, either. "Because buying a share in a company doesn't mean that the money goes to the company for investment. If you buy a share in NZME, the money goes to the person I bought the share off, not the company itself. "Even in IPOs the money sometimes goes to the founders. Only a small fraction of My Food Bag's IPO was earmarked for investment. A large part went to paying out the founders. So share investments aren't always as 'productive' as the average reader might think. "Though if more people invest in shares, then there is more money available when companies do raise money for further investment. Similarly, property is more productive than non-property people give it credit for. Many investors don't just buy and sell houses. They build new ones, or do them up. This improves the housing stock in New Zealand and does contribute to higher GDP and a higher standard of living." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
11 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Coalition parties call for opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration
New Zealand First's Shane Jones has been leading the effort to get the ban repealed. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Coalition parties are calling for the opposition not to re-ban oil and gas exploration in the hope more political consensus will bolster the industry - but those pleas seem to be falling on deaf ears. The legislation scrapping the 2018 ban passed through Parliament on Thursday night with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori pledging to restore it if they win power - a stance that could yet keep oil companies from investing in exploring for new wells. The repeal fulfils election promises from both National and ACT, though New Zealand First's Shane Jones has been leading the effort. Jones stood alongside Jacinda Ardern in 2018 to announce the ban. But in a media statement after the bill passed his boss Winston Peters rubbished as "flimsy" official reports suggesting the cost of the ban could be up to about $8 billion, and said using less fossil fuels would lower emissions. Jones in a statement on Thursday however said the ban was "ill-fated" and "has exacerbated shortages in our domestic gas supply by obliterating new investment in the exploration and development needed to meet our future gas needs". "New Zealanders are bearing the brunt of this constrained gas supply, and energy security concerns are impacting investor sentiment ... we are seeing businesses in the regions closing as a result with Kiwis losing their jobs, and we're importing hundreds of tonnes of Indonesian coal to meet peak energy demand. "This legislation is just one of many actions we are taking to get the right settings in place to resuscitate sector confidence, shore up energy supply and protect electricity affordability." He was absent from Parliament on Thursday, leaving the main government speech to the National Party's Simon Watts - the minister for Energy and Climate Change. Watts said the opposition's argument that reversing the ban would not yield new gas for a decade was "a distraction". "The immediate signal that this bill sends to investors is critical now. It encourages immediate investment in long-term exploration and in maximising production from our existing fields, which can deliver benefits far sooner. "New Zealand is committed to a clean-energy transition and meeting our emissions targets. We have committed to deliver net zero by 2050, including by doubling renewable electricity, and removing consenting barriers. Natural gas remains critical to our energy security. Without gas, we would need to either rely on more coal, which results in around twice the carbon dioxide emissions than natural gas, or face energy insecurity and higher prices." His Labour Party counterpart Megan Woods, however, said the evidence showed record investment in existing fields after 2018. "For this government to claim that it had a chilling effect on investment is simply wrong. What we had was those offshore oil and gas operators looking for every last bit they could eke out of the existing fields and it is not there. "Then we had Shane Jones saying that this will open up opportunities off the East Coast of the South Island. Well, news flash: billions of dollars have been spent looking for that particular El Dorado ... this government is going to give $200 million to offshore companies to go and have a look again where they've already decided there are not commercial finds available." She pointed to official analysis showing reversing the ban would add 14.2 million tonnes of emissions, and "a bit that should have been redacted from the regulatory impact statement" showing it could affect trade. "Let me read from that: 'Legally privileged: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade assessed that reversing the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand's free-trade agreements' - so farmers need to be worried, our access to the EU and the UK are being put at risk." Green Party spokesperson for just transitions Steve Abel was also sceptical the oil industry could be attracted back. He was part of the Oil-Free Seas Flotilla in 2011 that harried Petrobras' surveying ship for 42 days, welcomed to the area by a 500-strong haka "said by Te Whānau-a-Apanui, the iwi greeting us, to be the biggest haka since James Cook had arrived in that part of the country - I'm hoping we were more worthy of it than he was", he said. He listed off a series of oil companies that exited New Zealand before the ban came into place: Exxon Mobil abandoning its southern oil and gas hunt in November 2010 after three years, Petrobras in December 2012, Texan driller Anadarko exiting its permit on the North Island's west coast in May 2014, Statoil quitting its Northland permit in October 2016, and Shell selling its remaining assets to OMV in March 2018. He said the ban was the "final nail in the coffin of an industry that was already declaring its own demise in this country, because they came, they prospected, they found nothing, and they found nothing but overwhelming public opposition from the people of this country". Echelon Resources - the company formerly known as New Zealand Oil and Gas, last month told RNZ the best wells are typically drilled first , so new drilling will be more difficult and expensive. Its managing director Andrew Jeffries said other countries had more political consensus, making New Zealand an even more unattractive option for investment. ACT Party MP Simon Court said the repeal would restore certainty, credibility and confidence, but called on Labour not to re-impose the ban if it won power. "Today marks the end of an era - a really bad one. It marks the end of a six-year reign of economic vandalism and energy illiteracy by the previous New Zealand Labour government. "Even the Honourable Shane Jones said at the time - bless his soul - that ending oil and gas exploration 'is the only scenario'. When he stood at that podium, I was shocked, but I'm pleased that minister has come to his senses - but profoundly disappointed that the Labour Party still has not." His leader David Seymour said it was "very possible that they won't find the gas, but the impediment to people getting cheaper energy should not be our own government, and that's why I say if New Zealand First can change their mind then Labour should be able to do that too".
RNZ News
11 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Netball still under pressure in spite of TV deal
Silver Fern Grace Nweke. Photo: Andrew Cornaga / Photosport New Zealanders will be able to watch the 2026 Netball Premiership live and free-to-air for the first time in 18 years, but there are many unanswered questions over the TVNZ deal. Tension over the lack of a broadcast deal for the 2026 netball season saw worried players, unusually, speak out about their nerves over next year's season. This week the announcement finally came - Netball New Zealand was splitting with Sky to ink a new arrangement with TVNZ, one that will go back to an era we haven't seen for 18 years - exclusive, live, free-to-air games that everyone can watch. Fans celebrated, but underneath the headline announcement there are a lot of questions that aren't being answered. Financial questions. Such as, will the players have to take a pay cut? Did TVNZ even pay for the broadcast rights, given Sky had them backed into a corner then cut the sport adrift? Will there be a mass exodus to the Australian and UK competitions, given they (controversially) don't have restrictions on player imports? Today on The Detail , two of the country's premier sports writers, Locker Room founder Suzanne McFadden and RNZ sports correspondent Dana Johannsen, discuss the issues still facing netball. Netball New Zealand isn't discussing financial details, but we know it has a slush fund from former rights packages of more than $11 million that it could use for player salaries. "It may be that they take a punch to the stomach this coming season, and I guess they're hoping that they get more sponsorship deals because it's going out to more eyeballs," said McFadden. As far as TVNZ is concerned, "what they get out of it will probably be huge for them," she said. "I imagine that netball will now probably be TVNZ's number one sport as far as coverage goes." "It's still the largest sport in New Zealand, the largest sport played in secondary schools, so making it have a broader reach is a great thing." And TVNZ won't have to outlay a lot of resources - Netball New Zealand will be putting money towards the production of the coverage. It used outside contractors this past season to provide TV their one game a weekend that was broadcast. "We don't know if TVNZ has actually put any money into this agreement," said McFadden. "Netball New Zealand has stressed that they will have to look at other avenues to pay the players, so that's going to be looking for more sponsors, going to the government, to Sport New Zealand for money, and dipping into those reserves." Pay negotiations have been carrying on this week, "but I do think there will be a cut," she says. "Which kind of opens up this whole can of worms ... how many of our players will now go to play in Australia or England?" Last week Netball New Zealand announced the exemption criteria for players going overseas would be relaxed, meaning players such as star shooter Grace Nweke could stay with the Swifts in Australian Super Netball and still play for the Silver Ferns. Previously, Kiwi athletes had to meet a 100-Test cap threshold before they could be eligible to play in an international competition. McFadden thinks more players will head across the Tasman or to England. "I don't think there'll be a grand exodus because first of all those two major leagues don't have room just to fill up their teams with Kiwis." Johannsen said Australia is paying the price internationally for its policy of taking all-comers, with foreigners coming in at key positions and leaving skill shortages when it comes to the Diamonds. "It's really interesting to see but there's no push to change that [rule]," she said. "I don't think you'll see as much as a full Silver Ferns starting lineup all based over there, but I think maybe four or five players could pick up contracts. "If I was a young player, even on the fringe of the Silver Ferns, but wanting a bit of an OE, that's a really great option." Check out how to listen to and fol low The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
