South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill

I move, That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a third time. It is my privilege to have been the bill’s sponsoring MP, as the local member of Parliament for Whanganui, including the South Taranaki District Council area, and to bring this local bill before the House. I recognise that it is a bill that has had its controversy—during the select committee deliberations particularly—and I recognise the various positions taken by parties in the House. I recognise too that they are divergent. In some ways, some parties were never going to vote for this particular bill, and others always were.

I acknowledge the spirit of cooperation and understanding that pervaded the Local Government and Environment Committee during the course of listening to the evidence, but most of all today I congratulate those members of the community around Te Kiri in the Ōpunake area, who years ago saw the opportunity to lift production on their farms and to secure a viable and potable water supply for their homes and for their stock, and who took advantage of a scheme that existed at the time under the Government to be able to get a dollar for dollar subsidy from taxpayers, provided that they met certain production increases.

It was at a time in New Zealand, which some members will remember, when interest rates were incredibly high and penalty rates for late payments were even higher. It was not unusual for young farmers getting started in that particular area to be paying up to 22 percent in penalty rates and a normal mortgage rate of about 18 percent in order to buy their farms or their stock or to get working capital for those farms. So they invested in this Cold Creek water supply scheme and, in doing so, raised production on those farms manyfold.

Today it services about 300-plus consumers, and by a previous piece of legislation passed in the early 2000s there was a restriction on the ability of the South Taranaki District Council to vest the scheme back with those who had built it, maintained it, and paid for it, because of the fact that it was potable. Other schemes locally that were not potable were able to be vested back, so it was recognised very early on that there was going to need to be a local bill for this to be able to happen.

Looking back over that period of time, it is interesting to note the changes that have been made in respect of, for instance, one of the issues that arose, which is consultation with iwi. The local district council, the South Taranaki District Council, has an iwi liaison committee, and on it are a number of representatives of local iwi. They truly felt that they were doing the right thing in consulting with iwi via this iwi liaison committee, and expected that the representatives on that committee from the local iwi would take the issues back to iwi, that they would be discussed, and that the views would then be brought forward through this particular forum.

As was raised by iwi during the course of the select committee process, they did not consider that to be consultation, and this far down the track, more than 10 years after the instigation of this vesting process, I do not believe that any district council would leave such vestment of an asset over to be done in that particular way. However, I think everybody accepts that they did so in good faith at the time.

The iwi’s position is that local iwi are still going through the settlement of their assets, so no assets should be sold until that process has been finished with the Crown. They also have an issue around their place as Treaty partners with the Crown and whether they should be dealing with a district council or whether they should be sitting with the Crown and deciding the distribution of water rights, which at the moment is delegated to the Taranaki Regional Council. These are principled positions and they are well understood by both the consumers and the owners of the water supply and the South Taranaki District Council. However, there has not been a meeting of the minds there, albeit the select committee process was put on hold in order to be able to get round the table with iwi representatives and to understand where each of them are.

It is important to note too that the local people constructing the water scheme hooked on to the water scheme, without any charge, a number of local amenities, including local marae, the schools, the community halls, and other facilities that were community owned and operated—without any charge whatsoever, albeit, as I said earlier, it was a time of great financial stress. The buy-in for those schools, halls, and marae included the ability of the local Ōpunake township to be able to hook on in emergency circumstances to the Cold Creek scheme.

There had been an issue for some years that problems on the slopes of Taranaki meant that in heavy rainfall the water supply to Ōpunake township was not potable and was not safe. That meant that water had to be delivered to local homes, and the quick institution of a branch from the Cold Creek scheme meant that local Ōpunake residents were able to access clean and potable water straight off the Cold Creek scheme. By agreement, that facility exists today and will continue on into the future, albeit it is no longer required, because the South Taranaki District Council has spent a lot of money on ensuring the constant water quality for Ōpunake residents.

I guess the question then asked is: “Well, who paid for it?”. This is a question that has been debated around the select committee and around this debating chamber for some time. The point is made that mainly farmers put up the money for the construction of the scheme and actually built the scheme themselves. There was a dollar for dollar taxpayer subsidy—not ratepayer but taxpayer subsidy—that went with that on a condition, as I said earlier, that production was lifted as a result of the scheme. That has happened many times over, so the taxpayer has been repaid many times over by the increase in tax that was taken from these more successful businesses, mainly dairy farms.

There was a period of time when the South Taranaki District Council serviced the Cold Creek scheme by way of some monitoring, and when it was challenged to find a single cent that had not been covered by repayments from the Cold Creek operators back to the council, it was suggested that there was some time when inspections were done when they were not charged for diesel or travel costs. That was the only money, although it could not be quantified, that could possibly not have been covered by the Cold Creek scheme.

It is important to note that even during the discourse over the last decade or so between the council and the Cold Creek consumers, every expense the council has gone to, including legal fees in contention with the points being made by the consumers, was paid for by the consumers. So we are able to say today that we cannot quantify any money whatsoever that would be outstanding to the South Taranaki District Council ratepayers.

I want to just cover off, before I finish, a point that was raised by New Zealand First, which put forward Supplementary Order Paper 179 suggesting there should be a referendum across a South Taranaki District Council - wide constituency, and in the event that that did not pass, New Zealand First would not be voting for the bill, in spite of an earlier assurance that it would be. The point remains that the initial legal ownership of this scheme was vested in the Egmont County Council, which later was amalgamated into the South Taranaki District Council. If that Supplementary Order Paper had passed, the referendum would have been held of all constituents from Ōkato, which is about 20 minutes south of New Plymouth, all the way down to Maxwell, which is about 20 minutes south of Wanganui, albeit that those people have absolutely no interest in this.

It is important, finally, to mention that this is about the vestment of pipes and concrete on 1 acre or so of ground in rural Taranaki.

I am very pleased that we have reached this point today. I commend this bill to the House, and look forward to its passing, given the intimations from other parties of support that it will have across the House. Thank you.

I rise to speak in this third reading debate on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I acknowledge my colleague Chester Borrows. I disagree with him on at least one point, and that is when he says that he is just the sponsor of this bill. I want to correct the record and say that Mr Borrows is more than just a sponsor. He is not some sort of passive champion of this cause. He has played an active role both before this bill arrived in this House and ever since. His role started with going along with his colleague Shane Ardern and Mr Ardern’s brother and heavying the South Taranaki District Council into supporting in principle the transfer of the ownership of this water supply system.

If there is one point I would like to make and to be on the record in this third reading debate it is that although Labour will support this bill, let us not overlook that the process that has brought the bill here leaves a lot to be desired. It is not the way a local bill ought to be progressed or ought to be sponsored or supported by a member in this House. I think it is right and proper to note that there are people in the local community out there around Ōpunake and in the old Egmont County Council area who have expressed to me their concern about exactly what has happened here. There is very little to recognise in this bill from the respective contributions of the public and the private.

This scheme is being transferred into private hands. There was a 50 percent capital input paid for by the taxpayer, and although Mr Borrows said there is no record of any cost incurred by the council that has not been reimbursed by the subscribers to the scheme, the reality is that there was much support and maintenance work done gratis by the council because it was easy and convenient to do so. The council had the expertise to do it and it wanted to support the community, and that was done. A lot of that was engineering advice. The civil engineers employed by the council assisted the Cold Creek subscribers in the maintenance of their scheme.

There is still a live issue today in relation to consultation with iwi. That has not been conducted well, and that will remain an ongoing issue. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that the property owners understand it but there was no meeting of the minds. The truth is that the property owners have seen an opportunity and they have taken it. The iwi representatives who have tried to engage have met with considerable frustration, if not, indeed, obstruction, and that will have an impact on their Treaty settlements, which are forthcoming.

There is a redeeming aspect to this bill, and it is the fact—and it was added in during the select committee process—that there will be a referendum, even though it is confined to only those who are serviced by the water scheme at the moment or to properties that are capable of being serviced by it. There will be some public input into that.

The other redeeming aspect is that there has to be consultation with the local public health officer. That is appropriate and fair and that is right, but I do note that even though there are assurances that this scheme will be available as an emergency water supply for the people of Ōpunake, who have relied on this scheme in the past, we need to see that that is made good in practice. So all eyes will go on the Cold Creek supply scheme subscribers to ensure that they are good to their word and that when the water supply of the people of Ōpunake is imperilled, they will not be deprived of the water that comes out of this scheme.

So with those caveats and with those riders, and noting that this has not been a particularly smooth process and not an ideal process, nevertheless, Labour will support this bill.

I am very proud to rise and support my colleague Chester Borrows in this third reading of the bill that the Hon Chester Borrows has brought to the House, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. It is interesting, is it not, that, once again, Labour members feel they have to oppose this bill? They are really not quite sure why they have to oppose it, but they feel they have to oppose it. I think that is a shame, because I would have thought they would support the promotion of anything that enables good, productive farming, wherever it is in New Zealand. Whether it is in Ōpunake or whether it is in Ranfurly, it does not really matter.

💬 Todd McClay: What about Rotorua?

Even Rotorua—yes, Rotorua. This bill is about enabling the local authority to take the necessary steps so that the committee of the Cold Creek rural water supply can take over the ownership of its rural water supply, which not only provides water for agriculture but also has elements of town supply as well. It is a pretty small water supply. I have not got the figure right to hand, but there are something like 220—forgive me if I have not got it quite right—subscribers to this rural water scheme.

It was put in back in the day, in much the same way that a number of rural water schemes were put in in my area of New Zealand in North Otago, South Canterbury, and Central Otago. What happened was that groups of farmers got together and identified that there was a water source out of the local stream or, perhaps, aquifer. They got into the tractors, they got their shovels out, and they laid the pipe and put in the infrastructure.

In the Cold Creek case it was a fifty-fifty subsidy from the then Government of the day that enabled it to happen, but, effectively, from around the year 2002 the water committee has run the Cold Creek water supply as an entity, and has been doing it very well. It now wishes, for reasons that it explained to the Local Government and Environment Committee, to transfer the assets of the scheme to the company and away from the local authority. That is where members across the House have a problem, because they cannot see and do not understand how those farmers who put in the rural water scheme, who are maintaining it, and who are therefore providing employment and prosperity to their region could possibly own the rural water scheme. Well, we on this side of the House and Chester Borrows can, so this bill will bring that into effect.

In this third reading of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, I want to acknowledge the work not only of Chester Borrows but also of Nicky Wagner, chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and all members of the committee. I think we have produced a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Malo le soifua, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I have not sat through the public submissions on this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, on the Local Government and Environment Committee—

💬 Maggie Barry: Well, sit down then.

—but I have read through the reports, contrary to what that member might want to say, and I think there are some things that need to be clarified.

Contrary to what the previous member, Jacqui Dean, has just said, the Labour Party is supporting this bill—let us be quite clear about that. We are supporting it because it is about the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme, which is vested in the council, being transferred into a company owned by the farmers who put up 50 percent of the money to establish the scheme in the first place. The other 50 percent, we should remind that side, was put up by taxpayers.

I understand that this scheme has been going on for quite some time, and there have been some discussions on it, but the transfer of the scheme includes the real and personal property of the council. It includes the intake structure, the treatment plant, the land on which the treatment plant is situated, the in-ground covered reservoir, two waste discharge ponds, the pipes and pressure-reducing valves, other valves and supply point connections, all water meters for the scheme, and the electronic control and monitoring equipment, but does not transfer water rights, and I think that needs to be on record. It also, according to clause 4, is amended to clarify that in the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme, everything is sold as I have outlined, except for “the cross-linkage pipeline (beyond the connection point) used for the purpose of providing water to Opunake residents in certain emergencies.”

I am pleased to note also that clause 5 has been amended to provide an opportunity for authorities representing iwi whose rohe wholly or partly encompasses the scheme distribution area to be consulted. I think it is quite sad when you have a group of people who, for one reason or another, did not consult the local iwi of the area, and I am pleased to note that that committee saw fit to amend clause 5 to include the consultation. I think just because that clause is in there, it does not mean that I have confidence that they will carry it out, and I think that is the point that we are saying—we are supporting the bill, but there are concerns that have been raised by the public, that have been raised by the local iwi, that we have got to continue holding this Government to account for. So my word, really, to the council is that the council has got to be vigilant and make sure that the local iwi are consulted not just when they are needed but there is ongoing engagement and ongoing discussion about issues before conflict occurs.

Clause 8, I am pleased to say, provides that if a property within the scheme’s distribution, and so on, were to be transferred or leased to another person, the company assesses ability and commitment, including the supply of water to Ōpunake in emergencies.

Finally, I just want to raise this, because in a report by Richard Woodd on 27 August 2009 entitled “The battle for Cold Creek water”, the author makes reference to a regional medical officer who raised concerns about waterborne illnesses. I think that is the point we are trying to make here—that although the scheme is being transferred, the council still has a responsibility to ensure that quality water is provided and, in the case of emergency, that that water does not give rise to these particular illnesses. I raise that because I would hate for anything to happen, and if it did, we would put the blame squarely on this Government. Thank you.

I will take a short call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill because the reasons for the Green Party’s opposition we have talked about more extensively in both the second reading and the Committee stage. We will continue to oppose the bill and the process that it establishes by which the South Taranaki District Council can privatise a community water supply scheme that draws water from a stream running off Mount Taranaki.

We voted against this bill and will continue to oppose it because the scheme was built with a significant Crown grant of $1.28 million, so it is a significant community asset that should stay in public ownership and continue to deliver benefits to the wider community. It has never been clear as to what the benefits would be of privatisation—just why it is needed now. It seems to have come from a discussion about a decade ago and an agreement made then. But ratepayers, as other members have noted, have contributed to its operating cost and it was created and built with public money.

One of the other reasons for opposing it was the significant concerns that iwi have raised about the lack of consultation and the implications to incorporations like the Parininihi ki Waitōtara Incorporation and the limitations potentially on their ability to access water within the scheme area. Taranaki iwi have suffered some of the most serious breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi at the hands of the Crown. The very poor consultation that the district council did in relation to this bill and the potential effects on Māori reserve lands that are held and administered by the Parininihi ki Waitōtara Incorporation are a major reason why we are opposing the bill. That is because the privatisation would affect the value of the incorporation’s rental return from leases in perpetuity over Māori reserve land in the scheme area. That is because the scheme is currently part of the unimproved value of the land, but with privatisation the value of the scheme potentially passes to leaseholders, which will mean that the incorporation will not be able to increase the rents, as they may well have done without privatisation.

The incorporation is also concerned that there is a very real risk that their landholdings within the scheme area may be denied access to water in future, because the streams are already at their allocation limit, particularly in droughts like we are having at the moment, and there is not the capacity to take more water from them. So if you have a private company controlling access to water, it is able to shut people out. Certainly, there may be only 360 users of the scheme at the present time, but in 50 years with changes in land use, changes in subdivision, there may well be more people wanting access to water in the scheme. Where you do not have it controlled by a local authority, where councillors are accountable to the community through the elections every 3 years, you will not have the ability to influence the way in which water is managed by the company that you would have if it was managed by the council.

The other major concern we have is the fact that the referendum applies only in the scheme area. As submitters pointed out, it is effectively allowing those who benefit from the privatisation to have the vote. I am very disappointed that Government members and the bill’s sponsor did not support the Supplementary Order Paper in Andrew Williams’ name, which said that the referendum should be carried out over the whole of the South Taranaki District Council area. What is the problem that this Government has with democracy that it has denied democracy in Canterbury and here it is denying democracy again by having the referendum limited to a very narrow area? Those are three of the reasons why we will continue to oppose the bill.

It is my privilege to speak in favour of this South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill—

💬 Hon Member: Have you read it?

Yes, I am, thank you. This will specify the process that the South Taranaki District Council must follow to enable the transfer of the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd, and provide for certain related matters if the scheme is transferred to the company. I think, and this Government believes, that this is a practical and a fair solution. It may not be a significant economic asset, but to the farmers who use it it is very significant. Those farmers are the shareholders, and they are the only ones who are affected by and who benefit from this scheme.

This is about pipes and concrete; it is not about water. We do not need to get distracted with long and argumentative discussions and deviations on that matter; we need to focus just on the simple aspects of this scheme, which is about the pipes and the concrete in order to get water on to farms. It is something that has been set up by the community over a long time with the involvement of a number of farmers.

This bill enables community ownership of an asset built by the local community. Just briefly, I want to traverse some aspects of the history of this scheme for the interest of the House. It was between 1984 and 1987 that a group of farmers and residents living near Ōpunake built a water-race scheme on the Cold Creek catchments to supply farms and homes with water. It was overseen by the Cold Creek rural water supply committee of the Egmont County Council, which was comprised of both council members and local farmers.

The thing that I would like to say here is that this scheme was financed by a Government subsidy and dollar for dollar contributions for those using the scheme. At the time the Government insisted that the legal title of the scheme be vested in the local entity, so it was vested in the Egmont Plains Community Board. However, the ratepayers of South Taranaki never paid towards the purchase, maintenance, or otherwise of this scheme. It is totally operated by the residents of the scheme, therefore they want ownership vested in them under the Cold Creek Community Water Supply company.

This company has indeed managed the scheme, including finances, operations, and maintenance of the water reticulation network, since 2001. Way back then the South Taranaki District Council agreed to transfer the ownership. However, the Local Government Act 2002 means that a water supply cannot be privatised, therefore a local bill was the best way to make that transfer possible. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is tidying up this matter, which has been a source of continual frustration on the part of these people. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. It is very timely that this bill is in the House today discussing water supply when on the front page of the Dominion Post today we see that the capital city has about 20 days of water in reserve in the dams in the catchment areas of the Wellington area and that they will have to start drawing on the water from the Hutt River in order to supply the capital should the dams reduce in volume much more in the coming weeks with the ongoing drought conditions. It is a timely reminder of the importance to every community of their water supplies, and of the importance of maintaining the integrity of their water supplies and ensuring that there are contingencies in place for that important supply of the most basic human need: water.

In this respect, the Cold Creek rural water supply is there to supply, in particular, rural properties and farms in the Cold Creek area of South Taranaki. It goes back historically several decades to when it was put in under the old Egmont County Council in conjunction with the local farmers and people of the district, and it did receive a sizable grant from the Government in the order of $1.3 million to help install the water supply system. Therefore, public money has been expended to help that particular district council both to provide for its rural water and also to supply the township of Edgecumbe in terms of—I think it is Edgecumbe. Was it Edgecumbe?

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Wrong side of the island, mate.

No? Well, it provides one of the small towns nearby with its emergency water supplies. A small town nearby also depends on it as an emergency backup for water in the event that its own supplies run out. Therefore, although this whole scheme has been put forward by the Government and by the member Chester Borrows in terms of being, particularly, a scheme by the farmers, for the farmers, on behalf of the farmers, and for the sole benefit of the farmers, it does supply an emergency benefit to that local urban community as well in times of need. That need—you do not know—could well be in the near future, because we are experiencing increasing drought conditions in this country.

New Zealand First also has a problem with this bill in that originally we were of the understanding that there would be a referendum in the bill to make sure that it was kosher and stood up with the community, only to find when the bill actually came through its full paces that the referendum was going to be for only those local people in that catchment area affected by the water supply. So it is almost like asking for turkeys to vote in favour of Christmas. You have got a slightly vested interest by asking the very people who are attached to the water supply: “Do you want to control the water supply yourselves? And do you want it in your own ownership, under your own company?”. Therefore, it was not seen by New Zealand First as being a true and genuine referendum of all the people who had a vested interest in it.

Because there has been taxpayer money go into this over the years—there has been support from the district council in terms of technical support, in terms of administrative support, in terms of resources from the local district council, and in terms of making sure that the water supply in that particular catchment supply did continue to operate—there has been a local interest involved. We believe it should be the greater South Taranaki District that has a referendum to say: “Do you want this to remain in public ownership”—in the hands of the South Taranaki District Council—“or do you feel that this particular area of Cold Creek rural water supply should be handed over to those particular farms and particular people in that locality?”.

Again, we have heard other speakers this evening ask: “Well, what is the Government really worried about?”. It seems that every time the Government is faced with a question about democracy, it shies away from it. We have seen that it does not want to face democracy in Canterbury with the regional council down there. It did not want to face democracy when it came to the question of creating the super-city in Auckland, where that was railroaded through without any democratic vote by the people of Auckland on whether they wanted it or not. It just seems to be that every time something comes up where there is a question of: “Well, let’s ask the people what they think.”, this Government always seems to just take the attitude: “We don’t want to know what the people think. We don’t want to know what their opinion is. We will just do it how we want to do it, and blow the opinions of the local people.”

💬 Maggie Barry: We win elections, though, don’t we?

National thinks that by winning an election with a very, very, very slim margin—and where its margin is in place because it holds on to the reins only because it has the likes of the ACT Party propped up, the United Future party propped up, and the Māori Party, sort of in there hanging around the edges, propped up—it has a mandate to do this, along with the sale of State assets as well, when, in actual fact, a huge, huge number of New Zealanders are saying: “We’re not that happy about this. We’re not that happy about our democratic rights in this country being undermined.”

It is undermining the rights of the people to have a say in what is determined for them—to have their vote. Therefore, New Zealand First cannot support this local bill as it stands, because it simply is depriving the people in that area of the right to say: “Should this water be under our control or should we take it out and privatise it?”. That is a slippery slope in this country. If this goes through without the input of the local democratic rights of people there, there is a slippery slope as to what will be the next scheme. What will be the next scheme in New Zealand where a similar thing is brought to this House and it is going to be put through by the slimmest of mandates, the slimmest of majorities, and the people will be told: “Well, that’s the next scheme that we’re going to privatise.”?

In that respect I think it is time that National started listening to the people out there, because increasingly people are saying this is an arrogant Government. It is a Government that is not listening to the people. This week it is being deserted by its business mates in Auckland and Wellington, who are crying and screaming blue murder about their company car-parks having a fringe benefit tax imposed on them, and, quite frankly, this Government is starting to run out of friends. It is starting to run out of friends. When even the likes of its business mates are saying that these are dumb decisions, poor decisions, and clueless decisions, then you do start to wonder whether it truly has a mandate to put through bills such as this.

So New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We implore the Government to look seriously at changing this bill and to have a wider referendum—ask the people, stop being afraid of the people, stop being afraid of hearing the opinions of the people of New Zealand, and let true democracy reign in this country.

I rise to speak to the third reading of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. The sponsoring member of this bill, the Hon Chester Borrows, outlined very eloquently earlier the history of this bill and why it is needed, and I would like to echo his sentiments. The people of this area—there are 162 members, 400 individual people, and 162 connections, just to be specific about it—have been working on this for about 12 years, and it really does need to progress. Why did they want to make this change in the first place? I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee that heard the submissions, and we have discussed it and argued it through. The people of Cold Creek, those 400 members, went to all of this trouble and fought for 12 years because it is a common, sensible approach. They want to run their own water supply and, in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority on that committee, they should be allowed to do so because it is an excellent idea.

The other point that Chester Borrows made earlier today in his earlier call that I think is particularly useful—and, again, it comes back to representing a group of people and being a good local member of Parliament—is that this is a broad philosophical situation that we are looking at here. The investment that was made, they felt they wanted to own it. They felt that that point came across loud and clear in the submissions. They felt they wanted ownership of something they paid for and were prepared to look after—to share with the fire authorities, for example, if there was a broader community need. This is all a very useful, well-thought-through, cooperative, and collaborative approach.

As far as the iwi is concerned, Ngā Ruahine Rangi, they have advised us that they are not interested in acquiring the asset as any part of any future claim. These were issues that did need to be resolved, and it was appropriate that, as Chester Borrows outlined earlier, they sat down around the table and discussed it in some detail. The iwi have, according to the Opposition, felt marginalised. This was certainly not the experience of the iwi that came to speak to us and the nature of the submissions that they gave us. According to that evidence that came before us, they are very happy indeed with the arrangement. They reaffirmed that they were not interested in acquiring the asset. They were consulted and there was enough accord within this to make it an excellent community initiative. I personally believe that this is a piece of legislation that should proceed through the House directly and without further opposition. I commend it to the House.

I would like to contribute briefly to this third reading of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I have only recently got on to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I speak on this bill because the area that is covered by it is part of my old tūrangawaewae, and therefore it is important to me. I just want to make two points about the bill. Clearly the purpose of it is to transfer, or to specify a process by which the South Taranaki District Council can transfer, the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd. That means that there will be some security around the provision of water not only to farmers in that area but, as I understand it, to an emergency supply to the Ōpunake township itself.

There are two objections that I have heard to this bill that I would like to dispose of. One has been the cry from the Māori Party that iwi have not been consulted. I would like to draw the Māori Party’s attention to clause 5 in Part 2 of the bill, which specifically spells out the transfer process, which includes the holding of a referendum conducted under section 9 of the Local Electoral Act using the first-past-the-post system, so it has got to be more than 50 percent of the votes cast. The council complies with the provision in the process as long as it has consulted on the proposed transfer with, amongst other people, “every iwi authority in relation to each iwi whose rohe comes, wholly or in part, within the scheme distribution area;”—in other words, all iwi whose rohe are affected by the delivery of water through this scheme. So in order to get to a referendum, the South Taranaki District Council has to have demonstrated, reported on, and “made publicly available in a balanced and timely manner”, the legislation says, the results of consultation with every iwi.

The second thing I would like to say is that I am very puzzled by the party that wants to rule by referendum finding opposition to this piece of legislation. If one were to follow New Zealand First’s logic, every piece of legislation would go to referendum, which would be a crazy way to run a country. But when there is an opportunity for a referendum by local communities to vote on whether or not this particular water scheme should be transferred to the ownership of those who will be using it, then it does not seem that that is sufficient. So I am puzzled by that. The Labour Party supports this bill, and I commend it to the House.

I want to add just a few comments to those made by my colleague Eugenie Sage, which, clearly, I endorse wholeheartedly. [Interruption] Yes, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch—this is a split call. It was interesting to hear Mr Little in his contribution earlier note that the Labour Party is supporting the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Bill), but it is supporting it despite the process. A lot of the process issues underlie the Greens’ opposition to this bill, as well as some of the inevitable outcomes associated with it.

Consultation has been a major concern, and I would remind us that we have now got 20-odd years of case law, of precedent, about what constitutes consultation through the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act, and environmental law of all sorts. In consultation, one of the key propositions is that consultation involves a statement of a proposal not yet decided upon, listening to what other people have to say, considering their response, and then making decisions. Clearly, that has not been the case in this instance.

The comments from the member who just sat down, Maryan Street, are interesting. It is true that local iwi will be consulted on the process of alienating this or changing the ownership—the transfer process. That is a bit like completing the architecture and the construction of a home, finishing the building, and then offering people a right to be consulted on the colour of the house or the furnishing of it. The proposition we heard from Maggie Barry is that iwi generally are happy with this deal. There may be one iwi that is in support of it. I would point her to the submissions made from Parininihi ki Waitōtara Incorporation, who are seriously concerned about the likelihood of their income from leases in perpetuity being threatened by the passing of this legislation.

I would quote from the Ngāti Ruanui submission: “As kaitiaki, Ngaati Ruanui opposes the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Water Supply) Bill in its entirety.” That is a fairly obvious and clear statement of opposition from two significant Māori bodies—one iwi and a trust—in that area. According to Ngāti Ruanui, the bill provides no regard to the ongoing protection of the water and its importance to the wider community that it serves.

Not only is the iwi particularly concerned with its local interests, with the admittedly quite contained concerns about this quite small scheme, but it comments on the fact that it could represent a sea change if this bill is allowed to proceed, which, it seems, inevitably it will. It may indeed set a precedent that allows land that is under claim, where there are significant and very legitimate Māori concerns about ownership of land, resources, and, in this case, water, to nevertheless be alienated into private hands despite the fact that it is currently under claim. There are serious and unresolved concerns from kaitiaki from iwi and hapū in this area.

So for those and other reasons—the failure to acknowledge genuine democracy, the precedent that it will serve, and the failure of the process at many points—we will continue to oppose this legislation. Kia ora.

I want to make just a few brief comments, really, about the Cold Creek rural water supply, which this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, is dealing with. The Cold Creek scheme is up on the south-western slopes of Mount Taranaki. It serves an area of about 7,600 hectares between Kaponga and Ōpunake. It was built between 1984 and 1987 by Egmont County Council with a 50 percent Government subsidy and the farmer users of the scheme paying the other half. It serves 162 dairy farms, two marae, and 530 resident consumers. The main use is for dairy farm wash-down and trough supply, and it is all gravity-fed, apparently.

Well, listeners will know that Labour is supporting the bill, and I wanted to just comment again, really, on the position that the Green Party has taken on this bill. It reminds me very much of a recent debate we had, I think on the last members’ day, about Jacqui Dean’s bill, which transferred land in Ōāmaru, or clarified the ownership of some land in Ōāmaru. In that debate the Green Party registered its opposition to the bill on the basis that the quality of the consultation by the Waitaki District Council was inadequate. I do not dispute the sincerity of the view or even the opinion that the consultation carried out by the council was inadequate, but I do question whether that is a logical and valid basis for an objection to this bill. If you believe in local democracy and if you stand for the ability of local communities to exercise their rights within the law, then I do not believe that that objection—the one that we heard from the Green Party member David Clendon—is a logical and valid basis upon which to oppose this bill.

Possibly there are other bases for objecting to this bill, but I do not believe that that is one of them, and I do not believe that it is consistent with the position we have heard from the Green Party and many other members in this House about the rights of local communities within the law to look after their resources and make decisions about their own affairs. That is all I will say. Labour is supporting this bill at the third reading.

I rise to support the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill at its third reading. I want to just touch on a couple of things that have not been mentioned here in summing up this bill, which I look forward to being passed so that the people and users of the scheme can finally, after nearly 30 years, take ownership and control of the scheme, as they desire to do.

About 2 years ago, in October, the council voted 6 to 4 in favour of the transfer of the scheme and undertaking this bill, which Chester Borrows, that fine member from Taranaki, brought to Parliament in October 2011. I think it is important to note that this is the end of a long-ranging process that has occurred for many months and many years, throughout this Parliament as well.

I think also that one of the strange things that has not been touched on, which I would like to touch on quickly, is that this scheme actually feeds 21,000 cows, which I discovered in a bit of research—21,000 cows use the water from the scheme. That contributes well and strongly to the economy of South Taranaki and to New Zealand generally. I think it is important that we understand the importance, not only to the people of South Taranaki but to the people of New Zealand generally, of the milk that those 21,000 cows produce and the export earnings it provides.

I believe that this is a bill with a good process in place. It deals with the problems that have been put forward by the members who had been voting against it. I do not believe that the strange so-called referendum put forward by New Zealand First is in the best interests of either the users or the council, or the people generally in South Taranaki who use this water, or those in the wider area, and it would be a complete waste of time and money. Look, I think this bill is one of those ones that, we understand, brings local users in to own the local assets in a way that is best for them and best for the wider community, and that is something that this Government supports wholeheartedly.

I rise also to support this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, at its third reading. As we finish this reading I want to thank the Hon Chester Borrows for his work. He is a very hard-working and effective local MP. I also want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. It debated this in full. The committee went through all the details with a fine-tooth comb. Finally, I thank the submitters for being involved in the process.

But I want to just clarify that this bill is not about transferring the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd. It is about establishing a process that must be followed—a process for the South Taranaki District Council to make that transfer. This transfer is from the council to the local people who built the scheme in the late 1980s with a taxpayer subsidy, and these people are the ones who still use the scheme. It was a community collaboration to provide quality water, and the community has managed it and paid for its operation since 2001.

This bill prescribes the process required to make the transfer. It requires that before any transfer is made the council must consult with the medical officer of health for Taranaki and every iwi authority whose rohe comes within the scheme’s distribution area, and make their views publicly available. Then a transfer plan must be prepared by the company, and this must include analysis of the contractual arrangements with the council and an estimate of likely future capital and operating costs of the company. It also has to make an assessment of the company’s ability to maintain and operate the scheme for all residents—even if those properties change hands or they are leased to others in the future—how much it is going to cost, and its ability to maintain and operate the scheme for the next 30 years. As well as that, the company must agree to provide water to the Ōpunake residents in certain emergencies. Finally, it has to prepare a protocol that provides for the appropriate consultation by the company with every iwi authority in the scheme’s distribution area.

Then they have to have a referendum. That referendum covers eligible voters who are residents in the properties that are serviced by the scheme or capable of being serviced by the scheme, or within the scheme distribution area. Then the transfer can occur only if 50 percent of those people vote in the referendum to support that transfer. This is a case of local people committing to their community, of local people working collaboratively for nearly 30 years to create a community asset. The bill provides a process requiring significant local consultation and a community referendum so that the voters can have their say about their community. I commend the bill to the House.