Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

I move, That the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a second time.

I’m delighted to see the return of this bill to the Parliament. Just before I start, could I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Mr Tom Affleck, who is the chairman of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee—a major driver of this bill. He has been the chairman for 25 years and a foundation member.

My delight in the bill coming back—and, I’m sure, Tom’s delight—isn’t universally shared. There was some commentary, actually, in the Otago Daily Times by their political reporter Mike Houlahan, who noted with some trepidation that the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill would result in a repeat of the first reading’s very poor attempts to mimic the southern rolled “r”. So just to recap on the reason for this bill coming before the House, the bill seeks to override section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which states that councils must not divest ownership of water schemes servicing more than 200 households. The Otama Rural Water Supply scheme services 223 households. There are 253 connections. There are two schools and a marae involved in this.

The reason for being here is there is a historical dispute over the ownership of this scheme. The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee quite properly believe that since its inception—it was first mooted in 1969, I think I recounted in the first reading. A local farmer, Ian Robertson, at a Federated Farmers meeting mooted having a stock water scheme and the productivity gains that could be got out of that through having consistent, clean water supplies for their stock, and being able to subdivide up their paddocks more and get better grazing performance out of their farms, and, of course, having the benefits of being able to supply consistent, potable water for the houses. That early discussion resulted in stage one being completed in 1972, and it was actually paid for by the farmers themselves. Some of it was provisioned by a loan from the then Southland District Council, which was soon repaid. So the farmers had paid for it all, and they didn’t only pay with money; they paid with their own toil. It speaks, of course, to a time past. They were each required to put in 90 hours of their own labour.

The completion of stage two and stage three of the scheme went on through to about 1976, and it now, as it did then, currently covers about 73,000 hectares in the Otama area, which is an area just directly north-north-west of Gore. It has been, over that time, a very well-run scheme, and I just note that in the last 15 years alone, they’ve replaced the entire mainline pipeline. The submissions to the subcommittee were overwhelming in that regard. All of them referenced the fine job that the scheme governors had done in running the scheme over that, well, nearly 50 years now, and how trusted that was. As one submitter—I think Hamish Mackay—noted, they’re the ones with the most skin in the game. They’re the users of this water, they’re drinking it, and so if they didn’t have confidence, then no one would. We also note through that that they have got significant support from the Hokonui Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu.

The Gore council, in its position, contended that it did own the scheme. It contended that it had assumed ownership of the scheme with the wash-up in the Local Government Amendment Act of 1989. So it was just a plain dispute. I note within the debate, within the departmental reports that have come back, that we’re seeking to drag this into water quality, and looking at the situation around the review of the three waters, which I believe is coming into the Parliament in about June of this year, led by Minister Mahuta. This is actually a bill about local democracy. It’s about local people making local decisions. The Gore District Council decided to put this dispute to a referendum, where they got 75 percent participation and 76 percent of the users of the scheme voted in favour of the Otama Rural Water Supply committee assuming the ownership and the governance, and they will in due course form Otama Rural Water Ltd to continue to supply the services that they have for nearly 50 years. So this bill is about local democracy. It does have behind it the rock-solid precedent of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act of 2013, in their identical Act. This scheme and this bill certainly draws on that precedent, so we believe we’re on very firm ground.

Just looking at the submissions and some of the issues raised, all of which are totally covered and accepted by the committee as it seeks to take rightful ownership of the scheme—in clause 4, there has been a direction that we should just clarify that, with the term “water treatment chlorination system” to be added into clause 4 to make it compliant with the Health Act of 1956. I would say that the scheme governors have made it absolutely clear that they will comply with whatever requirements are placed on them to continue to provide safe water. While there had been some suggestion that we might delay the return of this bill to the House until that June date, it was felt that we needed to keep progressing this because, actually, the issues are going to be the issues no matter what the ownership of the scheme is. The farmers themselves are savvy enough to know that if there’s a significant increase in cost through having to comply with new three waters regulations, it would be passed on to them anyway by the Gore council, so they know that whatever the outcome of that, they will have to comply with the new standards, and, as I say, they have a long history.

Of course, there is also clause 5, the clarification around the referendum and the five-year period that that clarifies in, I think, subclause (1A) of that clause. There were a couple of other small technical matters: the fact that it was clarified that it would be zero rated for GST, etc.

I would note that the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme committee, in bringing this bill forward, and the Gore council, in bringing this forward, have—as I referenced earlier, the Hokonui Rūnanga have voiced their support. The Southern District Health Board have also given their blessing. The Medical Officer of Health, Dr Marion Poore, described this as being owned by the relevant users. So we got a very clear message of confidence in the competence of the current committee to run this scheme.

Just in conclusion, I think we have traversed most of it. It is quite a simple bill. As I say, this is not about trying to pre-empt public policy on water quality and where that might go. This is a very simple matter of respecting local democracy of where the true ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme should be, and respecting the democratic process that was lawfully undertaken by the Gore District Council to determine this outcome. New Zealand First and myself in particular have absolute pleasure in commending this bill back to the House in the second reading and look forward to the participation of the rest of the speakers.

I would actually just like to circle back and thank the committee for going down to Gore to hear the submissions. I think that was a great acknowledgment and a great thing for the Parliament to do to make it more convenient for those farmers, and I know that they really appreciated that. Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Seriously, I went into a state of deep contemplation during that intervention. Oh, gosh, it was thorough, wasn’t it? Every second of the 10 minutes allotted was taken—circled round and made the point several times. But here’s what I want to say about the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill: I want to actually thank Hamish Walker, Clutha-Southland MP, who attended each and every select committee meeting and stewarded the Governance and Administration Committee down to Gore to check it out. Can I just say, it’s lovely that the country has come to town. Good—good. Lovely to see that a bit of the South Island has come up to Wellington—

💬 Hamish Walker: Tom.

—and we are discussing—Tom—legislation which impacts greatly on a rural community. Hamish Walker is the MP who has really worked with the committee, has worked with the local community, and really has his head around this bill, which is why I’m not going to speak for terribly long, because I think Hamish Water—Walker; water, see, get that? Yeah, that was awesome. That was really good. You see, it’s that deep contemplation that I’ve been practising while the member opposite, Mark Patterson, was on his feet.

The pertinent thing, I think, in this piece of legislation is the ownership changes to the local community—with great community support, it’s true. As part of that process, however, an issue with potential water quality was identified, and the committee, together with the council, are taking steps to remedy any potential water-quality issues. I call that responsible. That epitomises what a rural water scheme can and does do. Because there is a group of farmer owners in this scheme, or soon-to-be owners—and they can’t wait for the bill to pass—decisions like chlorination and whatever else needs to be done to secure the potability of the water can be taken quickly and the decision can be implemented quickly. That is what a rural water scheme does very, very well: caters for the needs of its own community, whether it’s for stock water, whether it’s for drinking water, and whatever use that water might be put to.

So I congratulate Hamish Walker, local MP; the member in charge of the bill; but, most of all, the Otama Rural Water Supply committee and members for bringing this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too am standing in support of this bill at its second reading, the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill—got to add that “r”! Can I too acknowledge the presence of the chair of the scheme in the House today. I don’t intend to prolong this contribution. This bill is all about facilitating the transfer of the water scheme assets to the locals who built and established and have been benefiting from this scheme, who showed great foresight back in the 1970s by taking the initiative in building the scheme. Now we are transferring that asset to what will eventually, ultimately, go to Otama Rural Water Ltd. I’m always supportive of transferring local assets back into local ownership.

I want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their helpful amendments that they have made to the bill. In particular, there is some clarity around the timing as to when the referendum will take place, or imposing a time limit so there is certainty around that—I’m sure it won’t take five years, though, or I certainly hope it won’t take five years, for a referendum to be carried out—and there are all of the other helpful changes. We know that with ownership, there comes responsibilities. I know that Otama Rural Water Ltd, currently backed by the scheme, are well aware of their responsibilities, and it’s great to hear that they are continuing to work closely with the Gore District Council around those safety issues as well, which will be very important.

We’re only doing this bill because, unfortunately—well, there are 223 users of this water scheme. Had it been 200, this bill would have been able to fly through under the local government legislation, but be that as it may, we are putting this legislation through now. I support it at its second reading, as do my whanaungas down at Te Rūnanga o Hokonui, who are benefiting from this scheme. So, with that, I add my tautoko and commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand’s wealth has been built up over the generations by farmers. They have contributed more than their fair share, and they’ve done this because they are innovative, they are hard workers, they have common sense, and they get on with life, whatever hand they’re given. That’s why back in the 1970s, when a group of hard-working farmers and forward thinkers had a problem about rural water supply, they decided to get together and fix the problem. So they held a series of meetings across the Ōtama district with the intention of getting the rural water scheme off the ground.

I’d like to acknowledge some of these farmers: Stuart Baird, Kevin Kelly, Ian Robinson, and one of the last surviving members of that committee at the moment, Hughie Chittook. Some of the current committee members I’d like to acknowledge are Hamish Mackay, Donald Johnston, David Smith, Gavin Cruickshank, Chris Affleck, John Kerse, and, last but not least, the chairman, Tom Affleck, who has made the trip up from Southland to be here in the gallery today. It’s great to see you, Tom, and I was honoured that you joined me for lunch earlier today.

The leadership of the committee and those farmers back in the day has been instrumental, and a huge amount of credit should be given to them for today’s progress. They’ve played a huge role not only in the local water scheme but their innovative and forward-thinking ways have actually paved the way for the future generations to come. I’m going to note one of the submitters a bit later in my speech, but he mentioned that he’s the third generation, and he put a lot of this credit back to the original farmers that set up the scheme. Don’t underestimate the impact that, Tom, your committee, the original farmers, have done for the community and for the wider district.

I’d now like to acknowledge some of the people who took the time to submit and actually front up to the Governance and Administration Committee we held in Gore a few months back. It was the first time Parliament had been to Gore. I have resisted the urge to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to possibly move Parliament permanently down to Gore, as I think it would be a great thing for the community and, judging by the reaction of the members that attended on the day—people like Paul Eagle, Ginny Andersen, and the chair here, Brett Hudson—they were blown away by the Southland hospitality in kind. I’d just like to acknowledge the chair, Brett, when I first suggested to him, “What are the chances of bringing the select committee to Gore?”, and you made it happen. So thank you, Brett.

Just talking about a couple of the submitters that took the time to come in, one was the vice-chair, John Kerse. In his submission, he noted that his father was one of the original farmers that got this off the ground. John himself, as a teenager, also helped in working bees by assisting with laying and joining pipes and filling in trenches, using a tractor, which resulted in huge cost savings. But the main benefit, he said, was the sense of ownership amongst scheme users. He said that this pride of ownership had continued on, despite the fact that many farms are now managed by third or fourth generations since. Another submitters, Neil Gardyne, noted the voluntary contributions of time and materials by farmers had been the glue that had made the scheme work over the years, and is the reason why the high standard of infrastructure has remained at an impeccable level.

Today marks another step in the right direction. Tom, this has been probably rather frustrating for you over the years, but you’re here today. Tom, your involvement started in 1972. I believe you were the secretary from 1978 to 1993, and you’ve been chair since—so well over, what, 25 years. So you’ve been involved for just a wee while, Tom!

Let’s be clear about this bill: this is a practical and fair solution. This is not a significant economic asset. The farmers who use it and who will be using it are the shareholders, and they are the only ones that are affected by and benefit from the scheme. This is not about water; this is about the pipes and concrete. This is the right decision for the community, and the costs involved in this scheme—like they have been for the last 50 years—are borne by the users and no one else. The scheme has always washed its face and will absorb all costs associated with the transfer.

This is a good bill, which means a lot to the local community. I fully support it and I thank all the hard-working farmers who have got this off the ground, and also to you, Tom, for fronting up today.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s always a privilege to talk about anything to do with local government, so here I am, back in the House, talking about the Otama Rural Water Supply bill. Can I say—

💬 Chris Bishop: It’s not quite Wellington.

It’s not quite Wellington. We’ve got our own issues with water, but we’ll get to that on another bill one day. But I digress.

💬 Chris Bishop: Do the buses first—sort the buses first.

Water, buses, you name it—there are problems. But I digress.

Let’s talk about the wonderful world of Gore. Can I say it was another fantastic decision by the hard-working and probably the best select committee there is, the Governance and Administration Committee, led by Brett Hudson MP, and, of course, I’m on it. It was some trek, though. It took days and days to get there, but we got there. The parking was free, the welcome was warm, and the food was great, so I’m going back one day. That sort of set the scene, I think, for a decent conversation about something that means a lot to local people.

💬 Chris Bishop: How were the cheese rolls?

The cheese rolls, Mr “MP for Hutt South”, were absolutely outstanding—all 10 of them—and—

💬 Chris Bishop: What about the rest?

OK, 11. But can I just clarify one thing: we weren’t there just for the food. We were there to talk about something that was deep and meaningful to them.

What I like most is that too often, you get these situations where there is some conflict with the local authority—not in this case—and councillors. A councillor who presented was on the scheme board, the mayor was there, and there was full support, and I thought, “Look, this is great.” I thought, “This is a good start.”, and I have to wedge in that this Government is looking at the three waters, and so I was mindful of this. But it was nice to just park that up for a bit, hear what the local people had to say, and take seriously what they said.

So I too want to acknowledge—if he is still here—Tom Affleck and all of those who submitted. We got some really good submissions, and the most memorable for me was his son Chris, who had recently returned from overseas, but what he did was have some maps produced and he was able to articulate the extent of the scheme, the hard work that had gone in from many people over many years, and, I guess, their confidence. It’s not something that too many people do—come to me and say, “Can we keep our own water scheme?” It’s sort of like, “Really? Do you really want to do that?” So I was there with the need to be convinced that “Yes, you can do it.”, and there they laid out a comprehensive plan like no other. I was probably lucky—anyone would be lucky—to get out alive if you disagreed with them on sight, but no, they did a fantastic job in saying that we just need a break here, because we’ve got proven expertise in running this.

So I want to congratulate them. I want to offer them my full support. I know that the city has a few water issues, and they are looking at something similar—not in terms of building their own water scheme, that’s for sure. And we probably haven’t got the same volunteer and local effort to go in to do such a thing. But I leave impressed, and so, therefore, I want to thank Mark Patterson, the local bill member and, of course, sorry, the local member himself, Hamish Walker.

If only we’d stayed on a bit longer, we could have nudged some red flavouring into that photo that was taken. I was thinking that if we stayed a couple of hours longer there could have been a real competition for Hamish from myself in that seat at the next general election or something like that. I felt some real love towards the red. It doesn’t happen often, but Kieran McAnulty’s leading the way in these sorts of seats, and I thought I’d learnt a few things from him, and I felt I collected a few votes on the way out. So there we are. So there are lots of benefits to making a presence known in a place like Gore. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill in this, its second reading. I too want to acknowledge Mr Tom Affleck, who has come up from Gore to witness this stage, at least, of the progression of the bill. I want to acknowledge the support that seems evident around the House for the bill today. I particularly do want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee.

We’ve actually made a bit of a habit, in local bills, of travelling around New Zealand so that the people affected by those local bills can have every opportunity to make submissions. We have travelled to Thames, we have travelled to Richmond, and we also did travel to Gore. The members of the committee were very obliging. I will note too that the hospitality of the people of Gore is not simply legendary, it is, in reality, absolutely fantastic. Not only did we get an extremely warm welcome but the catering was just sublime. I made a point on our return of letting the Clerk of the House know that the bar has been lifted for catering of select committees. He watches these proceedings, and I take this opportunity to remind him that the Office of the Clerk is scrutinised by our committee, and, at the estimates and annual review hearings, he might see the judges hold up scorecards based on the quality of catering over the next few months in our select committee rooms. But I do definitely thank the people of Gore for welcoming us the way they did.

Now, it’s a pretty simple decision to want to support this bill, if for no other reason than the scheme itself has always been the responsibility of the scheme users. They built the thing; they’ve maintained it since they built it; they put in the capital expense and the work to upgrade it when it needed it; and they know, as do the residents of Gore, that if further work were required on it—whether it be water standard - based or, indeed, physical infrastructure - based—yet again it would be the scheme users that put their elbows to the grindstone, and their own money, and make that happen. So it’s very easy to go to Gore and to stand here supporting the initiative to ensure that what they have built and maintained remains theirs.

It was a quirk of history—a nature of the entity structure of the scheme—which meant that it couldn’t be a legal owner of assets that saw those assets come under the legal ownership of the Gore District Council. It’s a process which has left a number of scheme users feeling like their assets were expropriated from them—not maliciously but simply by that quirk of legal circumstance that what they had built and thought they owned was no longer theirs. So it’s very simple to want to help them to get that back. Now, we have absolute confidence that the law will demand that should the Three Waters Review result in some changes, such as water quality standards and the like, we know that the law will require the scheme users to comply with those, and we have every confidence that they’ll ensure that they do.

I just want to take this moment to acknowledge the member from New Zealand First, Mark Patterson, who sponsored the bill, and also, particularly, the local MP, Hamish Walker, who not only came with us to Gore but made sure that he sat in on the committee proceedings as it went through our committee as well. I think it’s good to see. I believe the local residents will appreciate the close support they’re getting from representatives. I also want to take this moment to acknowledge the Government members, not just on the committee but what I anticipate is going to be their vote in a little while. They expressed concerns during the process that, with the Three Waters Review, they might have preferred that this bill be parked until it was complete. We took the chance to articulate some reasons why we didn’t feel that was necessary, and the Government members supported the bill’s progression through the select committee on that basis and, from what I can gather in the speeches to date, it looks like they’re going to follow that up with their voting support today as well. So I acknowledge them for doing that. I’m pleased to see that they agree with us; that is the right thing to do, and I commend this bill to the House.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I stand on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand this afternoon to commend this bill to the House through its second reading. It touches on two principles or two values which are kind of at the core of the Green Party kaupapa: those being local autonomy and water quality.

I just want to acknowledge all of the work that has been put into getting this bill to this place. It is no small feat to get a local bill in front of the House. So along with everybody else who has been acknowledging “Chairman Tom” in the gallery today, I want to join in sharing those acknowledgements. So too I want to acknowledge the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Brett Hudson. I would note the Governance and Administration Committee is incredibly fantastic at travelling around the country and making sure that they are accessible to those submitters who are seeking to have their say on pieces of legislation, but also the Governance and Administration Committee oversaw my member’s bill, the Election Access Fund Bill, and did their darnedest to make sure that that process was accessible to members of the disability community. So I want to commend that committee for all that they do to make sure that the democratic process is as accessible as it possibly can be.

I also want to acknowledge the grassroots community who have worked actively with Mark Patterson in bringing this bill before the House, and also the local member—my mate, who I used to share the airwaves with, as two backbench MPs in Politics 101—Hamish Walker for the work that he has done, alongside the chair of the select committee, in making sure that members of the Governance and Administration Committee got down there to sample those cheese rolls, and, of course, hear from the local community.

I would say that the history has been well-canvassed—as was stated by the speaker just before me, Brett Hudson. It was in the 1970s that this piece of infrastructure was built by the local community—that capital, that time was invested, and it has been maintained by them subsequently. Therefore, we think that in dealing with the issues of water quality and the issues of local autonomy, it absolutely makes sense that there is that opportunity, through that referendum, for the community to have their say on their ability to continue that maintenance and that sense of control.

This bill appears to be a practical solution to an issue presented by the Local Government Act 2002, under which there is actually a provision for local councils to transfer small water services to another entity, but it seems to be—I’m not quite sure whether it is a meaningful threshold or somewhat, potentially, arbitrary because we had to hit a figure somewhere along the line in setting it, as we so often do in legislation. That small service is defined as servicing 200 or fewer persons. It so happens that the community that’s being serviced here is 23 people over, at 223.

So it is worth acknowledging that that may simply for virtue of this debate be somewhat of a technicality but, ultimately, we don’t think that those issues of water quality or local autonomy are mutually exclusive. But we do think that it is important, as was raised by other Government members at the Governance and Administration Committee, that this work is undertaken alongside the Three Waters review because fundamentally, as has come to the forefront of mind for many New Zealanders over the past decade, the quality of our water is of integral importance. But bearing in mind all of the work that’s been by the local Gore folks and those in Ōtama, I think that they definitely have demonstrated a huge amount of responsibility and pride, so I therefore commend this bill to the House on its second reading.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to start with acknowledging the sponsor of this bill, Mark Patterson, but I would like to show that the real commitment to this bill was shown by Hamish Walker in participating in the select committee process. I had to make way for him to come and participate in Gore, and I could not be there to have the hospitality from the locals over there.

This bill was very important for the locals, and I acknowledge the chair, Brett Hudson, who has always, as the previous speaker mentioned, made sure that we go out and reach out to the people who want to participate in the parliamentary process. So I acknowledge the chair for his commitment and, obviously, the support from the committee members is always there whatever he commits to.

We received 26 submissions in total, out of which 14 were heard orally in Gore. There are numerous houses, two schools, and a marae which use this water, and it is very important for the local people to have this infrastructure available for them. So this bill will ensure that the people who really care about water, who committed themselves to build this infrastructure, continue to look after this. With these words I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call. I call Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure but a surprise to rise and speak to this Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I, unlike many members here have not recently been to Gore—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

I know, I know—or had a cheese roll. But I am actually delighted to talk on this, because I think one of the things around water is that it’s a really important issue at the moment. It is absolutely crucial. And, first of all, I’d like to mention the name of Mark Patterson. Now I’m going to say the name Mark Patterson three times: Mark Patterson, well done; Mark Patterson, well done. I’m saying “Mark Patterson, well done” for bringing this bill to the House and sponsoring it because actually that’s a lot of hard work, so well done you, Mark Patterson. I’d also like to commend Brett Hudson and Hamish Walker/“Water” for their work on this bill.

Look, one of the things that I have been looking at in terms of the legislation—and this is a common-sense response to something that is integral to the small community—is the ownership transfer. Essentially, because we’ve got 223 people we need to make a change of ownership. And so that is fine; there is a piece of legislation requiring us to do so. However, I sit on the Health Committee and currently we are looking at the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. And of course everyone knows—and as has been stated—there is the Three Waters Review as well. So water is a really important issue.

So one of the things that we know is that that work is coming up and it was really important when I read the legislation and thinking across other select committees I’m in that, actually, safety is important around the water. Now, obviously, the farmers have managed to do this going forward, but I really appreciate what has happened in this legislation in that Otama Rural Water Ltd has to, essentially, say that it will have a water treatment chlorination system, it will need to provide a report which assesses to the satisfaction of the medical officer of health, and it, essentially, ensures that there is some safety around the drinking water, which I think probably, when we hear that there is a marae and two schools, is very important. We do not want another health incident. Of course it probably wouldn’t be as large as Havelock North, but none of us would like to see that happen. And with that, my very short contribution, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too will make a short contribution to the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill today in its second reading. As we’ve heard in the speeches across the House today, there’s absolutely nothing contentious in this bill. We are going through the process to create this legislation to simply clarify the ownership of the assets of the Ōtama rural supply.

This is something that evolved 50 years ago when the scheme was set up, and in typical rural fashion and with the attitude of rural folk who just get on and get things done it was pulled together by local labour, some cash, a Government subsidy, and a loan that was raised by the then Southland County Council. But actually, over time, there’s been a bit of confusion about who actually does own those assets, and thanks to the cooperation between the committee and the Gore District Council, led by my good friend and former colleague Mayor Tracy Hicks, they began the process of consulting with the community to decide on the options for the ownership of the scheme.

Seventy-five percent of eligible voters actually did cast their vote on their preference for this scheme, and, of those, 80 percent were in favour of the bill that we have in front of us today. So the community is clearly well supportive of where this bill is taking us. And we congratulate the council and the committee for their cooperation and perfect practical sense in getting it to this point.

I am sure that the 223 dwellings and all of the stock that make use of this rural water scheme will be very pleased to have the ownership and the administration sorted out once and for all. And as such, I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I want to congratulate Mark Patterson as the bringer of the local bill to the House—Ōtama being about 20 kilometres west of Gore in the beautiful part of central Southland. It’s deep in the heart of Southland, actually, which is the most beautiful rolling hill country, which is, you know, typical of the rural agricultural water supplies; on State Highway 94, and I think where the scheme is planned, or where it exists and is being transferred, is just on the north side of the Mataura River—for any of the locals, I presume that’s correct; and it’s on the way to Balfour. And if people haven’t been down there to visit, then they should, because it’s one of the most beautiful parts of the country.

This is a bill which is really around providing some local democracy. I note that there was a referendum held on this particular matter for the 223 households and organisations involved and that it was pretty overwhelming in the vote in support of the ownership of the scheme. I also note, and other have mentioned, that if there’d been a few less households, then we wouldn’t have to be standing in the House passing legislation around it. But, because of that, we are. I also note that in the submissions that were provided there was submission from the Southern District Health Board and there’s been a lot of care taken in making sure that we’re handling this matter carefully and appropriately because of the importance of getting any scheme associated with water—including drinking water—right. And I think that everyone in this House would agree that that’s pretty important.

The submissions—there were actually a number of submissions, and I’m really pleased to see that the select committee went down to Gore to consider the submissions from the local area. I think that is a real show of the importance that this Parliament sees in local communities and rural communities and the importance of local democracy—taking it really seriously. It’s a fairly non-controversial outcome, in the sense that it’s a scheme that’s being managed well. I think that the people that are managing it and that will be managing it have taken that really seriously, and it’s a matter of making sure that we get it right and that the Parliament treats it seriously. And I see that there have been precedents. The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act is an example where a local Act of Parliament was used to authorise divestment of a water supply that didn’t qualify for divestment under the Local Government Act, and this bill follows that approach used in the Cold Creek Act.

So it’s not seriously out of the ordinary, but I think that the Parliament has treated it seriously because of how important it is that we get any matters to do with drinking water and the safety of local communities right. So I’m pleased to commend it to the House.

This is a straightforward case to me. Now, basically, a water scheme was built in the 1970s. The contributors were mainly the farm users, and then a committee was set up and the members of the committee were, overwhelming, the users—farm users or representatives of farm users, and then plus a local councillor. So while the council is involved in management of the scheme, the cost has been covered by the farm users. So that’s basically the case.

What is more important is that there was a referendum and that the users overwhelmingly voted for the transfer of ownership from the council to the committee. And, of course, as I said, the committee is largely run by the users of the scheme. Now, this bill itself is largely to facilitate the transfer of that ownership from the council to the committee—or we can say, actually, to the users.

So we went to Gore and met representatives of the users. They warmly welcomed us, and the message was very, very clear. We could feel that kind of enthusiasm, and, of course, we expressed our support. And also, after the hearing, we went to visit the site along with Hamish Walker, the local MP, and the chair of the committee—and guided by Mr Hamish Mackay and also the leader of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, Mr Tom Affleck. So I thank you very much for hosting us and also for actually giving us a very clear message and very well organised presentation. So, to me, it is a very straightforward case, and I commend the bill to the House.

It’s days like this that I enjoy being in this House, because it’s when the House comes together, both sides: National, Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First—don’t think there’s anyone else. They come together and they support a bill that makes sense.

We acknowledge those that have contributed towards it, although I do want to note that I was very disappointed in Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker for not actually acknowledging the contribution of the bill’s sponsor, the locally based MP, New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson. It takes a lot of work to sponsor a bill. It takes a lot of work to shepherd it through the House, to liaise with those that put it forward as a local bill, and to continue that talking across the House and getting the support for it. So I for one want to acknowledge the contribution of Mark Patterson, a man who does a lot of work around the country in rural areas but certainly down in Clutha-Southland, an area I know well because, whilst I might be a very proud Wairarapa man, I did play rugby for Waikaia and cricket for Riversdale, just up the road.

So this is an area that I’m fully aware of. Although, I must admit, before Mark Patterson introduced this bill on behalf of the Gore District Council, I was not aware of the water scheme. So I thoroughly enjoyed looking into this, and, just like every other speaker that has stood up to contribute to this debate, I am very pleased to lend my support to it. I don’t think there’s any need to carry on this contribution, so, just like those before me, I acknowledge those that have contributed to this on the Governance and Administration Committee and those from the local region, and I’m very pleased to see this pass through the House at this stage.

Bill read a second time.