A proposal by two Christchurch City Councillors to stop rates increases through the annual plan process has been voted down.

Harewood Councillor Aaron Keown and Waimairi Councillor Sam MacDonald attempted to introduce an amendment that would have prevented any councillor-proposed changes to the 2025/2026 annual plans from being approved if they resulted in further increases to rates.

Heathcote Ward Councillor and mayoral candidate Sara Templeton said, “It makes a complete mockery of the consultation process that we have just had.

“Councillors are elected to be able to make decisions, to consider community input, and then make some decisions for our community.”

“There are things that impact rates that some people might think are unnecessary. One of my amendments, for example, does increase rates, but it does that to install water meters in unmetered properties across the city.

“People were very clear when we put the excess water charges in place that they didn’t like the fact that it was unfair because some properties didn’t have a meter.

“People assumed that programme was up and running and that we were going across the city installing lots of meters. That hasn’t been the case.”

Deputy Mayor Pauline Cotter opposed the amendment, saying, “Nobody wants to see rate increases at all, but we need to be pragmatic and listen to the submitters who came in. What is the point of them coming in if we don’t listen to anybody?

“If we support this amendment now, we’re cutting off all consideration of all of our representation for our communities who came and gave us the time.”

Christchurch Central Ward Councillor Jake McLellan said, “I couldn’t possibly support this, and I don’t agree with the advice that we’ve received, that this is a valid amendment. I think it should have been ruled out of order.”

Burwood Ward Councillor Kelly Barber said, “It’s democracy at work, and we can vote for individual projects.

“The single biggest issue that people raise with me, by a long shot, is the continual rates rises. They find it hard to fathom and hard to understand. I explain to them that there are factors outside our control. We’ve got to finish the stadium. We’ve got cost of borrowing, 100 million dollars a year. We’ve got inflation.

“But what I like about Sam’s idea is that it sends a message that we’re actually listening to the ratepayers.”

Fendalton Councillor James Gough said, “This isn’t about hearing submitters. It’s about whether or not we actually heard the core message from the submitters who came in to speak to us, and that message was really clear.

“It was that rates are already too high as it is. This amendment doesn’t prevent us from responding to those submitters at all. It simply says that we need to do so within an existing funding envelope. Moving an amendment about reprioritising funding for other programmes, sure, we could have taken the approach where we just put more money on the budget, or we could reprioritise funding. I’ve opted for the latter, so it works within the current budget.

“To me, good governance isn’t about just spending more. Our job isn’t to say yes to everything. It’s to make choices, and it’s about setting priorities and cutting our cloth accordingly. So I will most certainly be supporting this, because that’s the message that couldn’t have come through any clearer.”

Riccarton Ward Councillor Tyla Harrison-Hunt said, “We all know that everyone’s feeling the burdens of these rates increases, while at the same time, there are needs, like the chlorine, for example, or Culture Galore, which more than 10,000 people turn up to. And then there’s all of these things that we could be providing for the community that is actually a bang for buck.

“In contrast to what people say around cutting rates, they actually like chlorine-free water. Now they want those things. And what this motion here does is it declines the right for people who have chlorine free water.”

Sam MacDonald defended the amendment, saying, “The intent of this was to not put the additional increases that have been proposed today. We’ve worked pretty well with the Council staff, taking the themes of the submission and reflecting them through into what was a draft annual plan.

He said councillors were misleading the public by implying that his amendment would prevent the removal of chlorine from Christchurch’s water supply, when in fact that decision lies with the Government and was never the intention of the amendment.

“What often happens is that we get a flurry of stuff on the last day and go, it’s just another $50,000 there, another $50,000 there, and we get to a point where we cumulatively take more money off the people of Christchurch. So this was simply to say, let’s put a line in the sand. If you need reports, you can get reports. But actually, this time around, let’s see whether the council is prepared to say no more than what was the draft proposed.

“Very, very simple. Not anti-democratic at all. I find that quite offensive, actually, because we have been through a consultation process where we have read the submissions, heard from people, and looked through the thematic. I just don’t understand how that could even be possible.

“The concern I have is the politicisation of this. I think Tyla mentioned the need to be pragmatic. We do work together quite well. But in a healthy democracy, it’s important we have different views on stuff. Ultimately, we’ll vote on this, and I’ll get on with the decision, because that’s what you do. But to say this is political, when I talk to people every day who say we don’t cut our cloth and we don’t, I think the team have worked really hard this year, and we throw stuff in at the last minute to keep adding to the bill.”

Cashmere Ward Councillor Tim Scandrett said, “We all have a vote, and you can vote against this, so no one is stopping democracy. This is actually democracy, and it’s a free country. Someone has put something up who has listened to ratepayers, and everyone around this table has acknowledged the cost of living crisis. One of those things in the cost of living is the level of rates.

“Our fellow councillor has acknowledged that and done this, as they are able to. We can all vote against it, and I am going to vote against this, because with every amendment put up, we can vote for it or against it. We can keep the rates down or not, in individual ways.

“I think it’s just a wee bit overplaying it about the lack of democracy and how it’s making a farce of the process. This is exactly the process, and people are seeing it in action, and it is transparent because it’s been live-streamed.

“So I appreciate what you’re trying to achieve, Sam, and I totally acknowledge it, but I will be voting against it, because I am going to vote individually on each of the amendments which others have put forward.”

Who voted against: Moore, Johanson, Cotter, McLellan , Fields, Scandrett, Harrison-hurt, Coker, Templeton, Donovan.

Who voted for: Barber, Gough, MacDonald, Keown, Mauger, Peters, Henstock