Rich churches should not get pass on rates

If a church can afford to drop $10 million on central Auckland real estate and then fund $6 million worth of improvements, it should be paying rates.

I’m talking about the Church of Scientology’s spending splurge when it arrived in New Zealand’s biggest city.

While some of the region’s poorest fret over the Auckland Council’s demands each year – wondering why their rates have gone up and how they are going to pay – the Scientologists, reportedly worth billions, get off largely scot-free.

Their lucrative Grafton Rd property is 63 per cent non-rateable under the current rules. The law is ungodly.

It needs to change – rich churches should pay. It’s a section of the Local Government (Rating) Act that allows non-rateability for land used for ‘‘religious worship’’ and ‘‘religious education’’.

Last week, Auckland Council apologised to the region’s churches after religious leaders ripped into its ‘‘badly flawed’’ move to rate church properties.

The council had investigated which religious properties were using their premises for revenue.

It sent letters to churches asking how their properties were used, but officers have conceded they ‘‘may not have reached the appropriate contact’’.

Basically, any property used ‘‘solely or principally’’ for religious worship is nonrateable.

And not only does the law allow our churches to run rate-free, it also appears loose on what a religious activity is.

‘‘From time to time new congregations are formed and when that occurs their place of religious worship will usually be treated as nonrateable,’’ Auckland Council head of rates valuations and data management Rhonwen Heath told Stuff.

‘‘If a situation arose where there was uncertainty, we would need to take advice based on normal principles of statutory interpretation and relevant case law.’’

The New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists argues we all pay for these religious rates exemptions.

In 2016, it estimated New Zealand’s then1.5 million households paid $13.70 per annum to allow the religious places rating exemption – a total cost of $21m. Association president Peter Harrison said the association wanted ‘‘the same treatment for everyone’’.

Well-established religions should not get off free either.

Why shouldn’t the Catholic Church pay? God knows it has the cash.

The Economist in Britain pegged the annual spending and entities owned by the Catholics amounted to about $170 billion in 2010, while also noting the Catholic Church does not reveal its wealth.

A law change would be lengthy, not to mention complex – how do you fairly rate churches without hurting, or shutting down, modest congregations?

Wellington’s legal beagles and policy whiz kids can thrash out the details.

One thing is for sure, the current system needs to go, god damn it.

Not only does the law allow our churches to run ratefree, it also appears loose on what a religious activity is.