5 FUNDING OF REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The funding of RPMSs is governed by Sections 90 to 99A of the Biosecurity Act and subsequent amendments. Further to this, Section 76(1)(i) indicates that each strategy shall define how it is to be funded, and Section 77 describes the information on funding which is required within a strategy. However, since the RPMS of the Councils identified here are funded exclusively from rates, the relevant section of the Act is Section 97 which defines how a Regional Council may fund a strategy using rates. Originally this Section 97(2) said:
(2) No Regional Council shall approve a pest management strategy that includes provision for the making and levying of a rate unless the Council is satisfied that-
(a) The proposed pest management strategy includes reasonable notice of an intention to the provide in the strategy for wholly or partially funding the implementation of the strategy by means of a rate; and
(b) The occupiers of the properties on which the rate is to be levied have been consulted adequately and the Council has considered all views expressed in the course of the consultations; and
(c) The Council has considered all other views concerning the proposed rate expressed to it; and
(d) The used to which the proceeds of the rate will be put will be related to the interests of the occupiers of properties on which the rate is levied; and
(e) Overall, the collective benefits from the proposed expenditure of the proceeds of the rate to the occupiers of the properties on which the rate is to be levied will outweigh the collective costs to them of the payment of the rates; and
(f) All other relevant matters known to the Council have been properly considered; and
(g) The levying of the rate on the properties on which it is to be levied will, in broad terms, be fair and reasonable, having regard to -
(i) The extent to which (in the Councils opinion) direct or indirect benefits are likely to accrue to the occupiers of the properties from the intended expenditure of the rate; and
(ii)The extent to which (in the Council's opinion) the characteristics of those properties and the uses to which they are put contribute to the presence or prevalence of the pest or pests concerned.
During the course of the development of strategies, this part of the Act was amended, to simplify it and to change the emphasis from "being satisfied" that a range of pre- conditions had been met, to "have regard to" a range of issues18. The Act as it is currently worded now says :
"Section 97. (1) To the extent only that a regional pest management strategy provides for that strategy to be wholly or partially funded from the proceeds of a rate, the strategy may be funded from time to time-
(a) From the proceeds of a general rate made and levied under section 33 of the Rating Powers Act 1988; or
(b) From the proceeds of a works and services rate made and levied under section 34 of the Rating Powers Act 1988; or
(c) Partly from the proceeds of such a general rate and partly from die proceeds of such a works and services rate.(2) In determining-
(a) The extent (if any) to which it should fund a regional pest management strategy from the proceeds of a general rate; or
(b) The extent (if any) to which it should fund a regional pest management strategy from the proceeds of a works and services rate; or
(c) How to make and levy a works and services rate from the proceeds of which a regional pest management strategy is to be funded,-
a Regional Council shall have regard to-
(d) The extent to which the strategy or the part of the strategy to be funded from the proceeds of the rate relates to the interests of the occupiers of properties on which the rate is to be levied:
(e) The extent to which direct or indirect benefits from the expenditure of the rate (or chat portion of the rate that is to be used to hind the strategy) are likely to accrue to the occupiers of the properties on which the rate is to be levied:
(f) The collective benefits from the strategy to the occupiers of the properties on which the rate is to be levied relative to the collective costs to them of the payment of the rate or that portion of the rate that is to be used to hind the strategy:
(g) The extent to which the characteristics of the properties on which the rate is to be levied and the uses to which they are put contribute to the presence or prevalence of the pest or pests concerned."
Both the earlier and later versions of Section 97 have been included because the changeover between them was possibly not completely understood by all stakeholders in the strategies, and the confusion between the old and new versions may still be influencing some attitudes toward the Act. In both versions of the Act there are three key provisions for Council. These are:
- The benefits of the strategy to those rated should outweigh the rate revenue generated.
- The apportionment of the rate should take into account the degree to which benefits accrue to the parties rated from the expenditure of the rate; and
- The Council should take into account the extent to which the properties and their uses contribute to the pest problem.
The italics have been used to highlight two key misunderstandings in the way in which some Councils have undertaken their analyses. An aggregate analysis19 can be used to determine whether the benefits of the strategy outweigh the costs to those rated. However, in apportioning the rates the Councils should only take into account the marginal benefits of the incremental activity funded by that rate20. This issue is discussed further in Section 5.1.2 below.
In this section the degree to which Councils have met the requirements of the Act is considered. The report focuses largely on Section 97 of the Act because all Councils have fulfilled the requirements for inclusion of information as set out in Sections 76 and 77, and because the RPMSs are exclusively funded through rates. It outlines the approaches Councils have taken to determining funding under the strategy, and the influences on the use of these approaches. The report then discusses the extent to which environmental and social costs were considered, and follows with an outline of other issues raised.
18 The change in the Act to the words "have regard to... [various matters] " needs some attention, since the wording is central to the process through which Councils should arrive at a decision. In ruling on a challenge to a Commerce Commission finding, Judge Wylie had this to say about the phrase "have regard to" :
"We do not think there is any magic in the words "have regard to". They mean no more than they say. The tribunal may not ignore the statement. It must be given genuine attention and thought, and such weight as the tribunal considers appropriate. But having done that the tribunal is entitled to conclude that it is not of sufficient significance either alone or together with other matters to outweigh other contrary consideration which it must take into account in accordance with its statutory function..." [New Zealand Co-operative Dairy Co. Ltd vs Commerce Commission, NZ Law Review 1992, Vol 1, Page 601]
This section of the Act therefore requires the Councils to consider these
matters, and give them "genuine attention and thought", but they are not
necessarily paramount in any decision and should be weighed together with other statutory
considerations, primarily those in the Rating Powers Act and the Local Government Act and
their subsequent amendments.
19 ie the total benefits of the strategy should outweigh
the amount of the rate.
20 That is the benefits which derive from the activity
funded by the rate. This may differ significantly from the benefit derived as a result of
the strategy as a whole.
| © MAF 1999 | ||
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person
