Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

I move, That the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

It is with genuine honour that I stand to introduce the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill to the House. In doing so, I acknowledge my fellow southern coalition colleague Dr Liz Craig and Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker for their assistance to date. The purpose of the bill is to specify the process for the Gore District Council to transfer the ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Limited. The bill seeks to allow the council to override section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires councils to meet their obligations to water supply. Under this Act, councils must not divest ownership of water schemes supplying more than 200 households. The Ōtama scheme provides water to 223 households, two schools, and a marae. In seeking this exemption, the Gore council are drawing on the very clear precedent set by the South Taranaki District Council in regard to passing the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act 2013. The transfer also enjoys the support of the local iwi, Hokonui Rūnanga. We can come to the detail later, but first some history.

It is said that the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme was first mooted by local farmer Ian Robertson at a branch meeting of the Otama Federated Farmers in 1969, or 1970. Until then, farmers and households had relied on natural springs, creeks, and dams for potable water and stock water. Contrary to popular myth, Southland can dry out in the summer, and water supplies were unreliable. One local farmer recounted to me bringing up a family with two children on a mere 50 gallons of water per day, pumped from a spring. Prominent among earlier drivers of the scheme were local identities like Stuart Baird, Charlie Kerse, Hugh Chadwick, and Les Morrison, and, of course, no mention of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme can be complete without mentioning Tom Affleck, a foundation member who’s been the chairman of the scheme for the past 25 years.

The first stages of the scheme got under way in 1972, and it was financed by a combination of contributions from the farmers and a soon-to-be-repaid loan from the Southland County Council, and a requirement that every farmer contribute 90 hours of labour to construct the scheme. These were certainly different times. Stages two and three were soon to follow, and stage three was completed in 1976. Stage three enjoyed a one-for-one subsidy from central government. Upon completion, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme provided potable and stock water for the districts of Wendon, Wendon Valley, Chatton, Maitland, Waikaka Valley, McNab, Whiterigg, and, of course, Ōtama. These are districts to the north and north-west of Gore. The scheme itself is fed from a well near the Pyramid Bridge, next to the Mataura River. Ōtama itself is idyllic countryside, settled around a settlement that comprises a community hall, a church, and a primary school. And while you may not have been to Ōtama, the community itself is instantly recognisable to all of us as typical of districts up and down New Zealand. The production from such has, quite literally, built this country.

The scheme operated seamlessly, and has done ever since, in its commission under the competent governance of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee. It has consistently delivered high-quality water to its consumers. The maintenance contract has been with the Gore District Council. Over the 15-year period since 2003, the whole main pipeline has been replaced to bring it up to modern standards. The scheme maintenance and capital expenses have been financed by a targeted rates demand, but the money has always accrued in a specialist designated account, and a healthy surplus sits on hand to provide for contingencies—and so it would have continued if not for some concern within the consumers about the rising cost of maintenance. The committee, exercising due diligence, sought to consider bringing in private enterprise to maintain the scheme. It was at this juncture that the contention of the true ownership of the scheme came to a head, in September 2016.

The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee contended, not unreasonably, that they had financed and built the scheme and that the ownership should rest with them. The Gore District Council contended that they had inherited the scheme as a result of the washup of the assets from the old, now defunct Southland County Council, as a result of the local government reforms in the Local Government Amendment Act 1989. The dispute generated some heated local debate, including a packed meeting at the Otama Hall in May 2017. It was a meeting for which I was in attendance. The Gore District Council, to their credit, recognised the depth of public feeling on this issue and, while they were confident of their legal position as owners, decided to put the matter to rest by way of a binding referendum for the scheme’s 223 consumers. In July 2017, the resultant poll gave a resounding 76 percent endorsement of the scheme resting in the ownership of the committee and the company that would be formed from such. So the purpose of this bill was born.

I must address the elephant in the room: the Havelock water crisis of 2015 did highlight the imperative nature of the safety and security of our drinking-water supplies. The resultant report does recommend actions that point towards public policy heading in a different direction to that which this bill would be taking us. However, I urge the House to focus on the matter at hand. This is not a bill that seeks to determine the direction of wider public policy. This bill is about local democracy: that a local dispute can be settled in a mature and informed manner by local people. This bill is about enabling local people to make local decisions about important local issues, and we must use the laws of the day to dictate that outcome, not seek to pre-empt future Government legislation. The committee have worked diligently to ensure the compliance of whatever legal water requirements are deemed necessary by law, and, to that end, they have reacted to the Havelock inquiry findings by issuing a permanent boiled-water notice to the drinking water, and since May 2018, the water has been treated with chlorine. Of course, it is worth emphasising that the people who have voted for this action are also the consumers of the water. There is absolutely no way they would have taken this measure if they did not have total confidence and belief in the governance structure of the scheme to provide that safe water.

If this bill is to proceed, Part 2 of the bill sets out the process for obtaining authorisation to transfer the scheme. This, largely, follows sections 131 to 135 of the Local Government Act 2002. Part 2, clause 5 requires the order to transfer the ownership of the scheme to the company, which includes the requirements for the council to consult the medical officer of health and requires a further referendum, using the first-past-the-post electoral system. Part 2, clause 6 states that the Gore council is responsible for conducting a referendum in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. Clause 8 details the company’s requirements to satisfy its obligations to the council, and clause 9 is specifics of the transfer plan. Part 3 deals with the matter relating to the transfer of the scheme, including how land is transferred, taxation accounted for, and notifications required.

This is a thorough process that has the support of both the Gore District Council and the unit-holding consumers to the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. It is not only the right thing for this House to support this fundamental tenet of local of democracy; it is also recognising that this bill has the rock-solid legal precedent with regard to the Cold Creek Act of 2013. This is our opportunity as a House to endorse and support this process. I commend this bill to the House.

It is a fine day, not because of this bill but because we finally have the Government saying that water storage is a positive thing. So it’s a fine day.

But back to the bill: this bill relates to a wonderful part of New Zealand, being Ōtama, which is just inland from Gore. In Ōtama, you will meet some of the friendliest and smartest people in the country. Their determination and commitment to the district is clearly shown through this bill, which has made it to Parliament, and this scheme has a very interesting story and has been widely debated in the district over the years.

Following a public meeting in May last year, a referendum was held, with 300 votes, where three out of four people voted for the ownership of the scheme to be transferred from the council to the water scheme committee, under a new ownership scheme where the users are the shareholders. This is a very straightforward local government bill, which transfers the ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme from the council to Otama Rural Water Limited. It also provides for certain related matters if the scheme is transferred to the council. This is a fair and practical solution.

I’ve been lucky enough to drive around the scheme, in the fine company of Hamish MacKay, on a wonderful sunny Southland day—as they all are, down there. You don’t actually realise just how impressive it is, and how much the scheme does for the local farming community, until you see it for yourself firsthand. I urge farmers out there who do struggle with water solutions to get in touch with the scheme, as it’s a great way—and the founders back in the 1970s and the current committee have done something wonderful here.

This is not a significant economic asset. The farmers who use it, who will be the shareholders, are the only ones affected by this and who will benefit from the scheme. This is about pipes and concrete; this is not about water. The bill enables community ownership of an asset built by the local community. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a very interesting story which started in 1969, when Bill English was a young chap, following a series of meetings of farmers who got together and considered that the supply and reticulation of water on the farms would be of great assistance to stock management and health. A group of Southland farmers, who have since passed, started this scheme and I think need to be acknowledged for having the foresight, in those days, to put in place a sustainable solution for the future generations to enjoy. This story gives you a small insight into the innovative nature of the people down south. They get on with the challenges they face and make improvements where they can, to make life just that little bit easier for future generations to come.

I want to briefly pay tribute to that group of farmers who got the scheme off the ground. Excuse me if I leave someone out, but they were Stuart Baird, Kevin Kelly, and Ian Robertson. Back then, the cost of the scheme was met in contributions in cash and labour from farm users of the scheme and a subsidy from central government and a loan raised by the former support of Southland County Council. Fast forward a few decades, and ongoing costs and related costs in transferring the scheme will all be met by the scheme users.

The scheme is still primarily used for stock, but it also services an estimated 223 dwellings that are likely to use it for drinking-water purposes. As mentioned, the water is untreated but is chlorinated. The ownership of the scheme has been a bit murky in recent years, but the council considers that it currently has legal responsibility for the scheme, hence why we are here discussing this today.

The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee has governed the operation of the scheme on behalf of users since it was established. However, the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the scheme is undertaken by the council, including all the admin duties, field work, technical advice, and reporting to the committee. The cost of the maintenance and operations of the scheme is met by the committee from fees paid by users. Reasons for this local bill come under section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002. A local government organisation—in this case, the council—must continue to provide water services and maintain its capability to meet its obligations relating to the provision of water services.

There is history, as mentioned, for a local bill such as this. The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act 2013 was passed back in March 2013 for the same purposes. An interesting point to note is that New Zealand First, the Greens, the Māori Party, and Mana opposed the Cold Creek bill. New Zealand First wanted a referendum for the greater South Taranaki district instead of only those in the catchment. The Greens complained, on that occasion, that the South Taranaki District Council can privatise a community water scheme that draws water from a stream running off Mount Taranaki, and ratepayers contributed to its operating costs, and it was created and built with public money.

This bill has been drafted using the Cold Creek Act as its foundation. The Cold Creek Act was passed to enable the transfer of the Cold Creek water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd—a company owned by the users despite section 130 of the Act. As with the Cold Creek Act, this bill, broadly, provides for the process set out in the Act for the transfer of a small water service—sections 131 to 135—with some variations to take into account the nature and size of the scheme.

The committee has consulted local iwi through the Hokonui Rūnanga, who confirmed, in writing, its support for the transfer.

The scheme supplies water to 253 connections, on 210 farms, in the Gore district. There is just under 240 kilometres of pipeline. I visited the site where the water comes from, which is a bore next to the Mataura River, at the site of the former Pyramid Bridge. Numerous homes, as well as two schools and a marae, use the water, and historically the water was untreated, as the scheme was originally only for stock water.

I want to finish by acknowledging some key members of the committee who have put in the hard yards, and those hard yards are about to pay off. I’d like to acknowledge chairman Tom Affleck, vice-chairman John Kerse, Chris Affleck, Gavin Cruickshank, David Smith, Donald Johnston, and Hamish MacKay.

I hope you’re all watching from back home with your feet up, relaxing for a change. You should feel proud of your efforts and your hard work over the last 12 to 18 months, and it’s finally being recognised. Well done.

I urge all members of the House to support this fine piece of work, undertaken by a group of talented Southland farmers. This will add a huge amount of value and certainty for the farmers who live in Ōtama. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak at the first reading of this bill, the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill.

💬 Hon Members: Arrr!

I do like to pronounce words properly, so it is definitely “Gore”—you’re supposed to roll those Rs, because we’re talking about a most beautiful place and a most beautiful region in Clutha-Southland. I want to acknowledge, first of all, Mark Patterson for sponsoring this bill on behalf of the Gore District Council and the community, but also, joining with him, Hamish Walker, Liz Craig, and I’ll throw myself in there, too, as a fellow MP that covers that beautiful part of the country.

What we are considering here today has been summed up as being about local communities taking control. Here we have an important asset, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme, which was largely funded and was founded by the farmers of that region. It has provided a valuable role in supplying water and reticulation to the farms and the communities of that area. There are three parties, I guess, to this bill. We have the Gore District Council, we have the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, and ultimately we have the users of the scheme. This bill embodies, I guess, the resolution of some issues that have arisen in the past over who is responsible for what and ultimately who owns the scheme. What we’re doing today is clarifying that and we’re also putting in place a process whereby all of those three parties will be involved in ultimately transferring the ownership of that scheme to the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee.

We have the council, who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of this scheme, and have done so, and they report to the committee, and the committee has actually been in charge of governing the overall operation, and ultimately they foot the bill, which is paid for by the users. So, again, we’ve had all these different roles that have played an important part, and what we’re doing now, today, is bringing clarity to those arrangements and ensuring that the ownership of that scheme returns to its rightful owners—the locals who have funded and supported and been part and parcel of this scheme right from its inception back in the 1970s.

I want to acknowledge the Gore District Council for allowing this process to now proceed. The results from the referendum—the local referendum took that place from the 300-odd users—got a very, very high response rate. And it got very, very high—I believe the 75-plus percent—support for the returning local ownership to the scheme, which will be represented by their company.

We’ve heard some remarks made around the marae that benefits from this scheme and Te Rūnanga o Hokonui, so I do want to give a shout-out to my whanaungas down in Hokonui, who have been part and parcel, I guess, of this process and who are very supportive of it.

Ko Oparure te maunga

Ko Te Rakaitauneke te tupuna

Ko Mata-mata tana taniwha

Ko Hokonui te runanga

Ko Ngāi Tahu te iwi.

[Oparure is the mountain

Te Rakaitauneke is the ancestor

Mata-mata is his guardian

Hokonui is the tribal council

Ngāi Tahu is the tribe.]

I want to acknowledge them, because, if you ever get the chance, there on Charlton Road is a wonderful marae complex of the Hokonui Rūnanga. They are very much passionate about their ancestral landscape, which is demarcated by their ancestral tupuna and the mahinga kai, their traditional areas are very important to them, as are the rivers and, of course, as is the supply of fresh water. So with that I commend this bill at its first reading. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m very pleased to make a contribution to this Gore [Pronounced with a Southland burr] District Council (Otama—

💬 Hon Member: Oh, that was good.

—you see, the South Island thing comes in here—Rural Water Supply) Bill. A rural water scheme is a very precious thing to the local community that are subscribers to it. I know the three southern MPs who have spoken already have acknowledged that fact, and I want to add my voice to that in recognition that for a small, rural community, having secure stock water and drinking-water is incredibly important, and you can only reflect back into the 1970s when the local farming community built the water scheme themselves, and we can only wonder at the processes that they went through. But, obviously, they needed to get permission to sink the bore and then lay the common pipes, and then the pipes going on to their properties, and allocate the water into points. I don’t know if it was points allocation. The member in charge of the bill might know that. Are they points of water subscribers, or do they—

💬 Mark Patterson: Units—units of water.

Oh, units of water—same thing, I guess. So it is very much a community scheme.

I was just reflecting on the Cold Creek scheme, or the Cold Creek bill which is the precedent for this piece of legislation. I sat on the Environment Committee when that was going through the House, and the local farmers made trips to Wellington, from Taranaki, to plead their case, because they were so determined that they would take over ownership of their drinking-water scheme and stock-water scheme. They were very determined and very positive that they, as the owners of the scheme, were able then to truly regard it as their drinking-water scheme and stock-water scheme. So I’m very pleased to be one of those many voices that will be supporting this Otama rural water supply bill.

The process is interesting in how we have come to have a local bill. Of course, the Local Government Act prohibits the divesting of drinking-water schemes to bodies other than other Government bodies—unless, of course, it’s a small drinking-water scheme, which this is not, because the threshold for that is 200 subscribers, and this Ōtama rural water supply has 223 subscribers. So it doesn’t fit here nor there, hence the need for a local bill, which is why we’re standing here today. So I’m very pleased to be one of those voices to support the local community and to support their intention to take, finally and fully, ownership from the district council, understanding completely that they will continue to comply with drinking-water standards. They will continue to comply with water-quality standards and other legislation that comes upon them from time to time, and I can only wonder how they are contemplating the future when the Three Waters work of the current Government comes to being. I do hope that does not impose too much extra cost on this small drinking-water supply. In fact, I’d like to be reassured of that right now, as I’m sure the local ratepayers of that water supply would like to be reassured. They need certainty as they move in this journey towards owning their own drinking-water supply.

I was just talking to my excellent colleague Harete a moment ago, who was saying that the Cold Creek water supply has just had their official opening, and they’re very proud. One of the great benefits that has accrued to the community of Cold Creek is that they feel a huge sense of pride in themselves—and so they should—and a huge sense of community and a sense of ownership. That is very important with such an important resource economically, environmentally, to their homes, their farms, their businesses, as their very own water supply, which they put in the ground themselves, they laid the pipes, they planned it, they have the governance of it—working now on the passage of this bill, hand in hand with the Gore District Council. So I am very pleased to speak to this and very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. The Green Party is pleased to support the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill and, as the Hon Jacqui Dean noted, this is modelled on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, because a similar situation prevailed there where the community was seeking to have the management of the water supply transferred to them. This scheme, like that one, exceeds the number of households that will enable it to be classified as a small water supply scheme and then would enable the transfer to happen without breaching the requirements in the Local Government Act 2002, which, under the last Labour Government, imposed those quite explicit provisions which restricted councils from divesting themselves of water supply schemes because of the importance of maintaining those schemes in public ownership.

I acknowledge the comments made by other members, particularly Mark Patterson and those who know the area much better, about the strong community engagement in constructing the scheme with the assistance of a subsidy from the central government, and also, I understand, a loan from the district council. When you’ve got a community of less than 300 households being responsible for its scheme, I think it is of a scale where people are committed at that practical level to maintaining it, to going out in all weathers if there’s a blockage in the pipes, for example. But it also requires the Southland Regional Council, Environment Southland, to do its work on controlling land uses to protect water quality, because I understand that the bore for the scheme is close to the Mataura River, and we have seen—obviously, with the tragedy in Havelock North; with 5,000 people getting very severe gastroenteritis and health issues and three people dying because of sheep faeces contaminating the bore—the critical need to ensure that the bore and the catchment around it is protected so that the residents who are drawing from it can get a healthy supply.

I was pleased that the community has committed to developing a water safety plan for the scheme and has also committed to implementing chlorination to reduce those risks of any health effects. I think it’s probably quite impressive that the chlorination equipment can be installed, as I understand it, without requiring any additional funds from the users of the scheme. Obviously those involved in constructing, managing, and maintaining it, and the way in which costs have been assessed over recent years, ensured that they built up an adequate reserve that there is not now a need for additional expenditure despite the fact that there’s going to be new chlorination equipment installed.

With the Coldwater Creek scheme—that community wanted to take ownership because they were concerned that the council might divest itself and privatise the scheme. I don’t think from the information I’ve read that there’s anything similar proposed here. I will be interested in submissions that go to the select committee and that are then available in the select committee’s report on just whether there are any ways in which the bill can be improved—recognising that it is modelled on that earlier bill. But the Green Party supports the bill and encourages people to make submissions. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I’m a bit intrigued by this, because these water supplies have quite a history in rural New Zealand, and quite a contentious history in many parts of rural New Zealand, as well.

I thought it was just worth going back in history a little bit because many of them came into being in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s—well, basically, by the 1980s they were all done. They were brought into being by a Government subsidy, interestingly, in a lot of cases, or a Government contribution, basically, to rural water schemes, which were then sponsored by the council, because the council was the community-based body that was most appropriate to do it. In those days, most of them were county councils, and most of them were pretty small, actually. So they were sponsored by them, but they then put together local community committees, which ran them. So they weren’t, effectively, council-owned entities or council-sponsored entities, and they were put together and they ran pretty well. Often, dare I say it, private entities like these little community committees are much better at maintaining assets then councils ever will be, and that’s what caused a lot of contention with them.

Along came the 1989 local government reforms, and council CEOs, with their newfound power, decided that these were community assets, and they took them all over, like they took over thousands of recreational areas, parks, reserves, and things that little communities felt belonged to them. These water supplies were among those, and in the Rangitīkei there are a large number of these water supplies, very similar to this one, with, I guess, somewhere between 50 and 300 or 400 connections—in fact, the biggest one, I think, in the Manawatū may have upwards of 1,000 connections now. Along came the local government reforms and they, effectively, took them off the communities, and they were run as council entities with some input from the users. That, of course, created quite a deal of controversy because farmers and rural people have a way of thinking that they’re much better at doing things then councils are—they still think that—and so there was a lot of contention around the maintenance of them, the cost of maintenance of them, and the way they were run. So that’s how we got to where we’ve got to now. As well as a ratepayer subsidy or a council loan, there was also quite a significant capital contribution by the people who connected up to it. Those who didn’t connect up to it, interestingly, were left out, and so you’ll see, in some rural communities, there are people who never hooked up; they wish they had now, of course. And that’s a critical factor, too. So that’s a bit of a history of these schemes.

I think it’s absolutely appropriate that this scheme—and many others would like to do the same thing, I’m sure, in the form of a local bill—comes back through Parliament and gets to maintain itself, and I don’t think that’s necessarily any criticism of councils or a criticism of the way they’re run. But, in fact, the only beneficiaries of these schemes are the people who extract the water from them. So it’s pretty good, I think, that they get to be run, maintained, and paid for by those people who benefit from them. They were, of course, started off, basically, as stock water schemes, and in those days stock water and drinking water were much the same. There will be many of us all—well, there might not be many of us in this House who’ve drunk out of a water trough, but I certainly have. There were other things kept in water troughs, too. So we don’t find anything wrong with drinking out of the water trough and sharing with the sheep, but nowadays things are a little different.

Of course, the other thing that’s changed the way our water supplies are is the fact that we have so many tourists in New Zealand and so many people move through our rural communities and are not used to the same things that we were used to as young people, and whatever, and so it’s much more important that we have security of water supply so that these schemes are going to have to pay a lot more attention to this type of thing and the renewal and maintenance of them, and to ensure that they’re safe.

I think one or two other interesting things—and I noticed that Mark Patterson mentioned an old bloke called Hughie Chadwick. Whilst I can’t claim to be in the same age group as him, because I did meet his older brother, interestingly, in Gore the other day, and he was quite significantly a bit older than me—like, another generation removed—that’s the generation of people who put these things in place, and they’re a great credit to them. So I think this is a really good bill. I’m sure it will get through the House with complete agreement because, at the end of the day, it benefits that small community of people who will use this facility. So I say, “All power to them.” and well done to those people who put the bill together, and I’m sure it will be successful. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege as a Southlander to speak on this bill. I think, as others have alluded to, what we are looking at here is how the Gore District Council will be transferring the ownership of the Ōtama water scheme to its local users. For those who haven’t visited our part of the country, it’s a really beautiful place to drive through to visit, but it’s also heavily reliant on our primary industries, and so getting our water supply for stock and for those living in our rural communities is absolutely essential.

So I think on the one hand that what this story is about is a local community who’ve invested in this significant community resource over many, many years. But it’s also a local community that’s also thinking about the transfer of this water scheme in the context of the findings of the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry, and thinking about the impacts of that on public health.

So just going back to what Mark Patterson was talking about in terms of the origins of the scheme, it was developed in the 1970s as a result of the concerted efforts and input of the local farming community, who contributed in cash and in kind. And then also some extra funding support came from the central government and also alone raised by the former Southland County Council. But, since its beginning, the scheme has always been run and overseen by a committee that’s reflected the wills of the local users and also has had input by a local councillor.

What’s been happening, though, is more recently the Gore District Council has been responsible for maintaining and operating the scheme on a day-to-day basis, but those operations have always been funded by the committee as a result of funding coming through from local users. I think that’s a model that’s worked reasonably well, but the problem is when you then start thinking about how we can invest and take this scheme further, then the issue of ownership has come up. This is something that’s happened in the last couple of years, because if you think about significant investment it’s really important to actually understand who owns the scheme.

In this situation, both the local users, who’ve invested over many, many years, and the council had differing understandings of that, so what’s happened in the meantime is that the Gore council has assumed the legal responsibility for the scheme. But what it did was it then went to the users of the scheme and commissioned an interim referendum, and that referendum had a really high turnout. So about 75 percent of the scheme users participated in that referendum, and 76 percent of those users voted in favour of transferring the ownership to the committee and the local users. So as a result the Gore council has undertaken to support water users in transferring that ownership.

But the problem—and this is the reason why we’re here today—is that section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002 prevents a local council from transferring a water scheme to anybody apart from another local government organisation if there’s more than 200 users of that scheme. In this case, we’re looking at over 220 households, plus some schools and a marae, who are users of this system. So why we’ve got this bill here is to facilitate that transfer.

What the bill outlines is that process. There are three, kind of, broad categories of what has to happen. The first is that they have to consult the medical officer of health. They have to develop a transfer plan. And then here has to be another referendum based on all that information. I think the thing is that consulting the medical officer of health is really, really important, because, what we’ve had is a scheme that was predominantly servicing stock over many years. It has now come on board, and it’s actually servicing a large number of households as well as children and schools and a local marae. So getting that right in terms of the drinking-water quality is absolutely crucial.

As a result of the Havelock North inquiry, the council undertook a review of the adequacy of the water scheme last year and found there was significant risk for contamination. So, as of May, the water system and source has been chlorinated so that there’s that extra protection for users. There’s also a range of other requirements put in place to make sure that the committee has the capacity to be able to implement and deliver that scheme over a prolonged period time—over the next 30 years.

As a result of that referendum indicating support from users, we’re very happy to support this bill going through to select committee. We also understand that the local marae has supported this, and so we’re very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Again, it’s my pleasure too to stand in support of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. In contrast to what my colleague Ian McKelvie has said about this being contentious, I disagree with you, sir. I think this is a very non-contentious bill, and I think we’re seeing that in the tone of the speeches here today, where this is actually quite a common-sense way of finding a solution to a problem that has existed for a long time—that is, who actually does own the assets that serve the water supply users?

I guess when things happened back in the 1970s—we’re talking nearly 50 years ago that this particular scheme was set up—it was built, as Liz Craig has said, because of a combination of things. In very typical rural style, they lumped together some local labour, some cash, a Government subsidy, and a council loan, and, together, they pulled together the scheme. But back in those days, we weren’t probably as tight as we needed to be about who actually did own the assets, so here we are today.

I want to commend Mark Patterson as well for sponsoring the bill. I think local bills are a much-unused tool in the Parliament. For that reason, I am encouraging my local councils to pull together some local bills, and I certainly look forward to cross-party support when they come into the House.

The Gore District Council has maintained and taken care of the day-to-day operations of this particular scheme, but the governance of the scheme has actually been managed by the community group. So when the time came to sort this all out, my good friend Mayor Tracy Hicks and his councillors at the Gore District Council pulled together the process that was required to enable this local bill to be here today, and that did involve talking with the community and there was certainly the consultation that is required as a matter of compliance with the Local Government Act 2002. But the reason that this one has had to come through for special legislation is—as we’ve heard today—that under sections 131 and 135 of the Local Government Act, a council can divest its assets for a local water scheme provided there are less than 200 users, and, of course, this scheme, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme, is bigger than that. So this has required special legislation. Under section 130 of the Act, the council cannot divest its assets, so it must have special legislation to support that transfer back to the community.

I know that there are other ways that councils can sort these things out. I was involved in a similar dilemma of having nine council water supplies in the Westland District, and they ranged from Haast up to Fox Glacier and Franz Josef. There was Harihari, Whataroa, Ross, Hokitika, Kūmara, Ōtira, and a couple of community schemes as well—Ōkārito. But the one that taxed us most was in Hannahs Clearing in South Westland, where the water was particularly bad, and to get to it a suitable drinking-water standard required a huge amount of treatment and chemicals. The community didn’t want that and, besides, it was extremely expensive, so the solution that we came up with for that particular community was to actually close down the water supply. It turned out to be cheaper for us to buy every one of the users a water tank and hook them up to a rainwater catchment system. The council funded that, and the users repaid the loan for the water tanks back to the council through their rates. So that was a very casual and localised solution to what could have been a very expensive problem.

I think one thing I would like to note about this particular local bill is that it’s not about the water; it’s actually about the assets. I just note that when I was reading through the bill, I saw that it talks in the provisions of the bill about the assets that will be divested back to the community. It may just be terminology, but it doesn’t actually include the word “pipes”, and I just wonder whether the phrase “gravity and pressure mains” is a substitute for those words. But I do look forward to the bill being discussed, and I have pleasure in commending it to the House.

It is an absolute delight to rise to speak in favour of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I’ll tell you one thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, just to emphasize—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t tell me. Tell the House.

I’ll tell the House via you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how excited I am and how keen I am to come here. I have left a group of farmers from Makuri and Pongaroa—the wider Tararua district of Central Hawke’s Bay—in my office, who I was hosting for a drink, just to come down here and speak to this bill. A group of farmers in a Labour MP’s office, they could be up to anything—trashing the walls and pulling the pictures down—but this is how much I was keen to come and speak to this, because what this shows is that this is another example of the House getting together in support of something that’s important for rural communities.

This particular bill, as a local bill, is one, clearly, that that community wants, and how good is it to see the House getting behind it? I want to commend the member that is sponsoring this bill, Mark Patterson—New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson, the locally based MP down in Southland. The community came to him as a staunch advocate for their issues and the concerns that they have. I’ve witnessed his actions in that electorate first-hand. He is a tremendous MP, deeply committed to his local community. This, in fact, is a community that I know well. I’ve played cricket for Riversdale and rugby for Waikaia, just out around this area here. It is a community that wants to make sure that they are as self-sufficient as they could possibly be, and this bill is yet another example of that.

In ensuring a special process for the transfer of ownership from the Gore District Council to the users of this scheme, this House, in supporting this bill through the sponsor Mark Patterson, is showing that we are listening to their needs. Of course, as mentioned by previous speakers, because it services more than 200 users, it does require a particular piece of legislation in the House in order for it to happen. But, of course, in other areas, water storage and the provision of that in local government can be—as has been mentioned by previous speakers—a contentious issue. So how good is it to see that that is not the case in this one? This bill provides the best long-term solution for what this community needs and the users.

I want to acknowledge the district council for actually acknowledging how important this was to the area and putting forward a solution to the issue that was presenting itself. Good on them—not every council would do that. I’ve worked in local government. I know how frustrating and cumbersome the processes can be in local government, but not in this instance. I want to acknowledge their foresight in putting forward this option and putting forward a referendum where over three-quarters of the people that responded said that they supported this solution. The Gore District Council have demonstrated a core principle of the Labour Party, and that is belief in local democracy: belief in what people say, and doing what you can without undermining or jeopardising your values, and ensuring that it can happen.

Of course this scheme is typical of many of these types of schemes—rural agricultural water schemes—where they also supply a domestic source as well. I think it’s marvellous when you think that the way that this scheme started is farmers and users getting together and getting the scheme off the ground—it’s actually quite good to see it going back. That’s a personal opinion. I think the Labour Party would have got behind this bill because it is a clear message from this community that this is a solution they have come up with themselves, and if it didn’t require legislation through the House they would have just got on with it. That’s how people in Southland do it. But it did require legislation. They’ve brought it through Mark Patterson, he’s heard their concerns, he’s gone to the meetings, he’s put forward this as an option as a local bill and sponsored it, and brought it to the House, and everyone’s getting behind it. So good on him, and good on the people in and around Gore and the people of the Gore District Council.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Do you roll your R?

I don’t roll my Rs, Ruth Dyson. I live in Wairarapa. We speak very plainly and clearly.

Labour believes in democratic outcomes; it is what the party’s founded on. So it is the absolute privilege for me, on behalf of this Government, along with my colleagues in this Government from the Greens and New Zealand First, Rino Tirikatene, and Liz Craig, the hard-working list MP based in Invercargill, to stand in support of this scheme. It’s what the locals want, and how good is it that this House can come together to deliver it?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in support of this, the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill, because it’s fundamental, at the heart of this bill, this bill is about personal responsibility. We see the beneficiaries of the Ōtama water supply choosing—choosing to take upon themselves not only the ownership of the assets but the responsibility for their maintenance, upkeep, and improvement. They are the beneficiaries of the water that supplies those farms and they have voted—overwhelmingly voted—to take upon themselves the responsibility for those assets. Well, that is a core National Party value and it was a delight to see Mr McAnulty stand up in this House and champion the National Party value of personal responsibility. There’s hope for the man yet.

Along the course of the debate on this first reading, we’ve had a masterclass from this side of the House from Jacqui Dean, with her local body experience, on why this legislation is necessary to allow these people to take responsibility upon themselves for their water assets, and also from Mr Ian McKelvie on these community water schemes—how they were developed and put in place by small communities around rural New Zealand, how they lost control of them to councils, particularly over the 1980s and beyond, and how this, in some way, empowers particularly this community group to take that back.

Now, as a list MP based in Ōhāriu, I like to tell my colleagues in particular that Ōhāriu is a mixed urban-rural environment and I would encourage members from across the House to drive through Ōhāriu Valley, Takapu Valley, and Horokiwi and see the farms for themselves—not as large, it is true, as the farms in many parts of the North and South Islands but still people making a living from the land in Ōhāriu. And not just the land, because at Mill Creek in Ōhāriu Valley we have the Mill Creek wind farm, and they make money in Ōhāriu Valley from wind as well, which just goes to show that, despite what the media sometimes report, in Wellington you can get productivity from hot air.

But what I would say, in conclusion, on this particular bill is to reinforce what it actually is and the choice that the good folk that benefit from the Ōtama rural water supply have made. The Gore District Council acknowledged that they believe that they had legal responsibility for those assets, so that while they had been, for some years, charging the users of those assets for the maintenance and upkeep of them, ultimately, because the legal responsibility is borne by the district council, if something had gone truly wrong or badly wrong, then the ultimate financial responsibility for that could have been borne by the general ratepayers of the district and not solely by those benefiting from that water supply.

So that makes it even more remarkable but not uncommon across rural folk of New Zealand—so many of them good, strong National Party sorts. It makes it—perhaps not surprising to us but to some that the group of people from those more than 200 farms and other community members have overwhelmingly voted to take upon themselves that ultimate responsibility. Along the way, of course, they gain control of those assets. They can make the choices of what to do with the funding to support them, on where to invest and when, but alongside the power they get to make those decisions rests now with them the ultimate responsibility for those assets, for their upkeep, and for their prolonged ability to deliver for those farms.

I think that speaks volumes to those people—not just in Ōtama, actually, but across rural New Zealand and New Zealand as a whole, we would argue. But it speaks volumes for their character that where they could have kept the status quo where the ultimate responsibility would have been spread—socialising the losses, I believe it’s sometimes referred to as—and they could have maintained an environment where they could potentially have spread losses across people who don’t benefit from that water supply, when, given the opportunity, they have raised their hands in very large numbers and overwhelmingly chosen that they want to bear the responsibility. They want to be empowered to make their decisions, and they are prepared to take the risks that come along with that, and I salute them.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you, and it is a pleasure to sum up this first reading. I would like to thank the House for their indication of support for this bill. I will seek to overlook the very poor attempts to roll the Rs, and I’m sure there’ll be some southern MPs, myself included, that will be needing to douse down some local offence as, of course, everyone is watching with bated breath down there—it is an important local issue.

I think actually Jacqui Dean referred to the Cold Creek farmers and their appearance before the select committee, and I can tell you know that the Ōtama water users—farmers—will be here as well, and in some numbers, because this matters to them. This absolutely means something to them. They put this scheme in themselves. They drove this scheme, they put it in—the 90 hours of labour that they required to put in to get this scheme up and running and in the ground. And isn’t that a bygone era? In some ways, I just reflect on that—that we’ve come, as a society, almost backwards in some point where we’ve had to wrap everything up in cotton wool, and today we wouldn’t be able to do what we did. There would be too many health and safety concerns.

So I commend the House for focusing on what is the core issue here. It is enabling local people to make local decisions based on local reasons—and demonstrably so, with that 76 percent decision in favour of progressing this bill from the local people. I’d also like to thank the House for well referencing—not seeking to broaden this debate out into the wider issue of water quality. We know we have this Havelock situation that was incredibly unfortunate. We know this is part of a wider debate. Public policy will have to be looked at in this sense, and it is being looked at, but the House as a whole has focused on the core issue here. And of course, as also referenced, we are sitting on rock-solid precedent with the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act of 2013. The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee themselves have to be absolutely commended on the way they have researched and resourced bringing this bill forward. They have left absolutely no stone unturned. They’ve bought the best legal advice that money can buy, and they know they’re on rock-solid ground. That’s, ultimately, why this House is swinging in behind.

Of course, as Mr McKelvie and others mentioned, the delivery of water is an absolutely fundamental service—not only the potable water, the drinking water that’s obviously for households to be able to survive, but the stock water and what that does for productivity. These schemes coming in allowed subdivision—paddocks to be divided up—on appropriate areas as opposed to having make fence lines around the contour where they could capture some water. So this is a really important tenet of farming, to be able to subdivide those paddocks. The productivity gains that will have come from this scheme will have been enormous back in the time. I’m always really proud of this statistic, and I mention it often in the House and I know others do too from the South, but Southland produces 14 percent of this nation’s GDP, from 1.5 percent of the population. This is an incredibly, incredibly productive and contributing area to our country as a whole, and most of that, I might add, is through small rural areas just like Ōtama and the surrounds—the surrounds that are covered by the bill that we are debating here.

So on behalf of the good people of Ōtama, on behalf of the Gore District Council, I do thank the House for swinging in behind and supporting this bill in such an overwhelming and complimentary manner. It is with this that I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.