I often hear calls to cut red tape and that organisations, council included, just need to get on with things instead of reading rules too strictly.

I’m not claiming to be immune to those thoughts myself at times, but then I remind myself of what can go wrong with that theory.

Here’s a couple of examples. 

I read a news story recently involving an inflatable slide that collapsed where, despite the slide being operated by another party, a council was financially penalised for its part in failing to keep people safe when it collapsed.

 Thames Coromandel District Council authorised a company to operate the giant inflatable slide at a festival in December 2020. The slide collapsed and a dozen people, mostly children, fell from heights of up to 12 metres. A father on the slide broke both his ankles and has required 11 surgeries since. It must have been a nightmare scene and distressing for all involved.

The company itself was fined $350,000 and ordered to pay reparations of over $40,000 over the incident. The council was later ordered to pay reparation of $10,000 to the gentleman concerned for its failure to manage a shared risk.

In its investigation, WorkSafe found the operator applied to the council using an old form which didn’t require confirmation the slide met safety standards. A permit was given three days after the application and from my reading of it, it appears that this was given without the council doing any checks due to the wrong form being used.

After the incident, experts found the slide was electrically unsafe, had air leaks via holes and seams, and poor anchoring.

I don’t have any complaints with the outcome of this, but I think this is a very good example of why councils have to be very thorough in fulfilling the legal roles imposed on them. 

Another example is closer to home and highlights the peril posed by ‘joint and severable liability’. This is a legal concept that means that, if two parties for, say negligence, are jointly to blame, one party can be made to carry 100 per cent of the loss even if they were only, for example, one per cent to blame. 

This legal principle has been applied in Queenstown where a company built leaky apartments, the council signed off on them and then the company folded. As the only remaining party with any liability still existing, QLDC was sued for its part, with a claim of $163M. The end result was a negotiated settlement so the actual amount paid out remains confidential, but whatever it was, the impact on ratepayers has been and will be significant for years to come. 

 I don’t know the ins and outs of the case, but when there is no-one else left to point the finger at, it is councils and their ratepayers that end up footing the bill. 

That’s the counter-argument to the “cut the red tape” brigade, because to do so is a potentially dangerous and expensive path to take. I am all in favour of central government finding ways for there to be less red-tape, given councils generally are just enforcing central government mandates, and in particular, calls for limited liability to fall on councils in “last-man standing” situations so the amount of the claim more accurately reflects the amount of wrong-doing would be a very useful start.