Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would resist and completely agree with our decision and support our decision to not condense this very important bill into one part. It is a local bill. It has come to this House on behalf of the farmers and the shareholders and landowners in the Gore District Council area who wish to assume ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply, that they themselves have had stewardship over—and an emotional attachment to, you could very strongly argue—for a number of years. The very fact that there is a local bill in this House, on behalf of the community of Ōtama water scheme users is of the utmost importance to that community, which is why I think it is very important that this House does honour to those folk by giving this bill the attention that it deserves today. I’m a little disappointed in the member in charge of the bill, Mark Patterson, wanting to truncate this process. I do know that Hamish Walker, the MP for Clutha-Southland, who’s a very strong supporter of this bill and sends his kind wishes to the House, has taken a very strong interest in the passage of this bill.

So we are on Part 1 of the bill, which is, of course, clauses 1 to 3, I think—“Preliminary provisions”. This part of this bill is pretty critical. It sets out the process which the Gore District Council must follow to authorise a transfer. It cannot be done without a local bill. There is a process therein, which is described in Part 1 of this bill, that is to authorise the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’ll just correct the member that Part 1 is actually the purpose and interpretation. I think the process is in Part 2.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A matter of clarification, then, Madam Chair: yes, I am speaking to the correct bill. I’m on page 2, Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”: “The purpose of this Act is—(a) to specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow”.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, that’s the purpose; Part 2 is the actual process.

Yes, so I am reading from the bill, which specifies the purpose of the Act, which is to—so if you would like me to, I can—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you arguing with me?

No, not at all. Actually, I did make a point of order, and I was speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’ve heard your point of order. That’s fine if you’re reading from the bill, but when you debate it, we are talking the purpose and interpretation, not the actual process. That’s Part 2.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the purpose of this Act, as I was outlining to the committee, is that there is a local bill which has been brought by the community, who have, over a number of years, developed the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. The scheme was built in the early 1970s, so it’s quite some considerable years old, and it came about very organically, if you like, through a series of meetings of farmers in the community. This is the kind of—I was going to say process, but I’m a bit gun-shy of that word just at the moment—activity that has happened over the years in many parts of rural New Zealand, where a reticulated water supply was identified as being very advantageous to the local community, not least for purposes of stock water, because generally those communities are in rural parts of New Zealand, but also for irrigation purposes on land, and, most importantly, perhaps, to supply good, potable drinking water for the houses of that scheme.

So in the 1970s, there were a series of meetings—because, you know, you’ve got nothing else to do at seven o’clock on a Tuesday evening for months and months and months on end. Those people put a considerable amount of time into those meetings to nut out—I was going to say “process” again, but I’m not going to do that—how it will come to be that they can form a—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great honour, actually, to, for the first time, be the member in the chair here for a bill, a local bill which I have had the honour of bringing forward on behalf of the Gore District Council. Of course, my interest in this bill actually goes back quite some way. I was at the public meeting in May of 2017 at the Ōtama hall, a packed meeting of about 200 people, with the intention of thrashing out at a local level what the process might be to transfer the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme into the ownership of the local farmers and householders who had built and paid for the scheme.

There had been a historical dispute regarding the ownership of this scheme. The scheme was conceived in the late 1960s. It went into the ground in the early 1970s, over three stages, finishing in 1976. The original scheme was put in by the farmers. It was paid for mostly by the farmers but also from a loan from the now defunct Southland County Council. The farmers then paid that loan off within a year or two, so they contended that they owned the scheme. They’d paid for it, and some of it in actual sweat equity—they were required to put in 90 hours of their own labour. So they contended that they owned it. The Gore District Council contended, on the other hand, that they owned it and they had inherited it in the Local Government Act 1974 redistribution of 1989.

So it had been a long-running dispute, but it came to a head when the farmers wanted to explore other providers of maintenance services from the private sector and maybe not continue on with the Gore District Council providing those services, as had been done to that date. So that’s where it came to a head. There was no agreement, but the council, in their wisdom, decided to put it up for a referendum and trust the people to make the decision, and, of course, these people are the people with the most skin in the game. Not only had they paid for it initially but they are the consumers of the water, and of the potable water as well. I note there are 253 connections, mainly household connections, and, of course, there is stock water on farms covering 73,000 hectares and there are two schools and a marae. So no one was more incentivised than those people in that hall, in their combined wisdom, to understand who would be best to run that scheme.

The farmers had been concerned about the cost escalating in running it, so they took matters into their own hands. There was a referendum held, and there was a strong endorsement from 75 percent of the respondents to, essentially, bring the water under the ownership of a new entity, Otama Rural Water Ltd. To do that, we needed to override section 131(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, because this scheme had a threshold of over 200 suppliers, which meant the council was unable to transfer that ownership without an Act of Parliament.

So whilst this legislation may not be described by the Prime Minister as this generation’s nuclear-free moment, it is actually, at a local level, really important to these people. It means a lot to them. They have invested a lot of not only their money but their own time and they’ve taken a great deal of pride, and in over 40 years they have shown a huge degree of competence in running this scheme. They have also demonstrated, as we will see, a willingness to comply with whatever regulations they have needed to. They have already put chlorination in to make sure that their drinking water is compliant with any current regulations, and they have indicated—as we will see in Supplementary Order Paper 206 later on—that there is an intent to comply with all pending regulations.

So just in terms of the purpose, I think I’ll leave it there and give some others some time. But I look forward to debating the points shortly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, it’s a real pleasure to speak on this, the preliminary provisions, but particularly the purpose, taking in mind some of the history that the member in the chair, Mark Patterson, has just given us. I have a question for Mr Patterson. In all that we know and all that we learnt through the process of this bill traversing to this point, particularly the submissions from the good people of Ōtama in Gore, would he hold that clause 3(a) really genuinely reflects both the purpose of the bill from the perspective of the scheme users? As Mr Patterson pointed out, it was the scheme users that built this scheme. They literally built it themselves. They certainly paid for all of the assets. They have paid for all of the maintenance from its very inception. They have paid for every physical upgrade and every maintenance and fix activity on the scheme, and yet, clause 3(a) says, “to specify the process … must follow to authorise a transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme”, which includes the assets—to authorise a transfer. I would suggest to the member who is promoting this bill, who sponsors this bill, and who is in the chair that, reflecting on what we heard from the scheme users and the people in Gore, far better wording that would accurately portray both the legal purpose of what the bill effects and also the purpose of the bill for the scheme users and people of the district—that, instead, it should read: “to specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow to return the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to scheme users through the vehicle of the Otama Rural Water Ltd”, that being the company that will be vested with those assets.

That’s exactly what the scheme users, and, indeed, most people around Gore who support this bill, see that its purpose is. For them it is not some dry legalese wording of taking assets which are currently under the legal ownership of the Gore District Council and transferring them to some dry company that meets the conditions of New Zealand law. To them it is an absolute reflection and recognition that assets which they have always held to be theirs are being returned to them through the vehicle of a company because New Zealand law requires that. In fact, they told the committee when we visited Gore to hear the submissions that the only reason the whole question of who owned the scheme and the scheme assets ever arose was because the scheme users were advised that they weren’t in the form of a legal entity that, under New Zealand law, would permit recognition of the ownership of those assets. So it was by de facto rather than by any intent—certainly of the scheme users, and probably also never of the district council either. There was never an intent that those assets should be taken from the people that had paid for them, built them, and maintained them and given to another group of people. It was simply in their minds an understanding and a convenience that, under law, the structure they had at the time could not allow legal ownership of said assets.

So I ask the member in the chair to reflect on this. This is our opportunity to not just pass law that can enable the scheme to go back legally under the control of its users; it’s an opportunity for a small change in wording to make sure that the law that effects that change actually reflects the purpose of the scheme users—the people that have always paid for this, who always will pay for it. All we need to do—and I’m more than happy to help the member draft a Supplementary Order Paper for this, but I think it is a very simple one. We could simply change the words “follow to authorise a transfer” to “follow to return the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to scheme users through the Otama Rural Water Ltd”. That way we—if this bill were to exit both this stage and get a successful third reading, and I believe, based on the previous reading, that all members of the House will support that—can be sure that what we pass into law adequately and comprehensively reflects not just a legal purpose but the purpose of the people for whom the legislation is intended to benefit.

It’s a pleasure, as a southerner, to speak on this bill and to see it get through to this committee stage. I want to focus on Part 1 of this bill, which outlines the purpose and also lists all of the scheme’s assets that would be transferred. In terms of the purpose, as we know, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme has had a really strong sense of community ownership, from the beginning. It was developed by local farmers back in the 1970s in response to that need for a reliable stock water source. But what’s happened over time is it has grown and it’s now supplying over 200 households plus schools and a marae.

Looking at the local governments at the moment, it’s governed by a committee which has got eight appointed users plus an elected councillor. The Gore District Council has assumed the legal responsibility for the scheme and it maintains its day-to-day operations, but the running costs are met by the users. So where we’ve come to at the moment is the fact, as has been mentioned, that there was considerable debate about the ownership of the scheme, because having put in that resource, that time, the local community felt that it was vested in their ownership; however, the council thought it was vested in its ownership. So what this bill does is it makes that very clear.

Back in 2017, the Gore District Council held a referendum of water users to see if they wanted that ownership transferred to the users, and 75 percent of those users participated in that referendum and around 76 percent were in favour of transferring ownership. So the Gore District Council, as a result, has said that it would support that process for this to happen. But that couldn’t happen immediately because section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002 prevents a council from divesting ownership of a water scheme to any other body if there’s more than 200 users than another local Government organisation, and that’s what the purpose of this bill is. In Part 1 it basically says that it’s to specify the process by which the Gore District Council must follow to authorise the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply to Otama Rural Water Ltd. So, basically, that’s the purpose as outlined in Part 1.

It also goes on to list all the assets that are currently vested in the council that would be part of this transfer process, and that includes the land on which the scheme’s treatment plants are situated, the Pyramid well and pump station, all the reservoirs, other pump stations, and all of the tanks, mains, valves—all the equipment associated with the water scheme. It also includes a resource consent to draw the water, for the purposes of the scheme.

But there was one other aspect that was added during the select committee process and that was the water treatment chlorination system itself. As a response to the Havelock North inquiry, they did do an assessment of the water quality of the water scheme, and it revealed that there was a risk for contamination. So, as a result, both council and committee agreed to chlorinate that water supply, which began in May 2018. So that’s been included also in those listed assets.

So, basically, this bill in Part 1 just lays out very clearly what the purpose of this bill is and those assets that would come under the auspices of this bill. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to participate in the committee stage of this bill, and I would like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, Mark Patterson. Seeing him for the first time participating in this bill—it’s good to see you in the chair over there.

Part 1 of this bill specifies the purpose. The purpose is to transfer all the assets of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Ltd. It is important that we should understand why this bill is being debated in Parliament. These assets are very important for that region, and the people who have paid for the assets in the early 1970s have been maintaining this whole scheme and paying for it, and they have done the hard yards to build up this scheme. There have been issues from time to time where their authority was being challenged. That is why this bill is required—to make sure that Otama Rural Water Ltd owns these assets—and the purpose of this bill is very specific on this.

In the purpose clause, clause 3, paragraph (b) provides for “certain related matters if the scheme is transferred to the Company.” That means that it is certain that all the assets are owned by this company. This also specifies in the interpretation clause, clause 4, what the assets are, and these assets include the wells, the pump station associated with the scheme, break tanks, gravity mains associated with the scheme, valves, water meters, and electronic controls, and the last item which I would like to also specify is the water treatment chlorination system, which is very important in today’s atmosphere, as we have seen in Havelock North, where the water quality became a big concern for the population over there.

This scheme provides water to households in the area. It’s not only provided to the households but to the marae also and to the school also. We want to make sure—the Governance and Administration Committee decided—that this provision should be added so that the water can be purified and chlorinated so that it is safe for the people to consume. So the purpose of the bill is very specific, and I commend this to the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a brief contribution here on Part 1. I’m sort of a bit disappointed that we are having to do a very narrow, part by part debate in this committee stage. Up till now, the bill has had very broad support across the House, and there’s no real reason for us to be able to go to such a narrow debate when there is overwhelming support for this bill. I know that the good folks in Ōtama and Gore will be somewhat disappointed that the passage of this bill has been stalled to take into account such a narrow and probably superfluous debate, which we’re doing thus far.

But, be that as it may, I just wanted to make a contribution on Part 1, and I want to acknowledge Mr Hudson’s argument around specifying the return of the scheme assets and the scheme itself to the good folks represented by the company which will ultimately be the owner of this scheme under this bill. I think there is some merit in that, and perhaps a Supplementary Order Paper could be drafted to that effect.

There is ambiguity, though, around the ultimate legal ownership of the assets. I don’t blame the Gore District Council. I believe they’ve been acting in accordance with what they believe to be their responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002 in terms of the provision of water, which is why they have been conducting the day-to-day operations of the scheme. Likewise, the good people who sit in governance over this scheme are drawn from the users in the dwellings and the farms and are the good people that invested and built the scheme assets. They are, likewise, conducting their roles as good governors. But there is an ambiguity.

I note that in the definition of “scheme” in clause 4 of the bill, it does specify that the scheme is vested in the council. So to that effect, in black and white, whether vesting is ownership, in accordance with the bill itself those assets and the scheme itself are vested in the council, and, therefore, it has to be transferred from the council to, ultimately, the company that’s being established. So I think these are semantic points, but it might be good for clarity; but there is ambiguity, and hence that’s why we are involved with passing this bill through the House. It is to ensure that these assets, which have been built up by the users for their benefit over the past 30 or 40-odd years, actually go back to local ownership. Had there been 23 fewer dwellings involved with this scheme, such a transfer would have been able to happen automatically under the provisions of the Local Government Act.

So it is only because of some little technicalities, I guess, that we are having to go through this process. But, be that as it may, we have been supportive of this bill throughout. It is specified in the purpose in Part 1, in those preliminary provisions and all of the definitions in clause 4, “Interpretation”. I certainly hope that all of the assets concerned with the scheme are comprehensively covered by the schedules, which are linked to the interpretation section. We wouldn’t want to leave some bits out. But I’m sure all the pipes and all the pumps and everything else that’s involved have been comprehensively covered in that interpretation section. So we support this scheme.

One of the aspects I just wanted to clarify, and perhaps the member in the chair, Mr Patterson, will be able to elucidate for me: which marae actually is part of the dwellings? Is it Ō Te Ika Rama or the Hokonui? I know both fall under the Hokonui rūnanga, but it is Ō Te Ika Rama which I believe would be the marae in question, as opposed to the one in Gore itself? So thank you, ma’am.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I just would like to respond to a couple of the points raised to date. So in terms of Mr Hudson’s suggestions around a Supplementary Order Paper—and could I just first of all commend Mr Hudson and the Governance and Administration Committee for travelling down to Gore. I should have acknowledged that first off. It was a really great move. It allowed many of the submitters to submit who would not have been able to make it in person. So I commend it for that.

Just in terms of clause 3(a), I think it was—that you authorise a transfer as it currently stands versus return—I tend to agree with my colleague Rino Tirikatene over here that we’re actually dealing in semantics there. I see it from the National Party’s point of view: this is a very blue, heavily blue electorate. You do have a local member there, and I know that there is some sensitivity around a New Zealand First member being asked to bring this bill forward. I get that, but I have tried to rise above that a little bit because I know that the members of the community—this is important to them. So I have not tried to politicise that, and I think that what you are doing is—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Not me.

Sorry, Madam Chair. Mr Hudson, what you are doing is trying to almost out-enthuse me for this bill and to make out that it’s more important to you and the National Party than it is to myself or to New Zealand First or to other coalition party members. We actually have some cross-party buy-in to this. So I will not be pursuing, from my end, a Supplementary Order Paper—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s good, because you need to talk to the bill.

OK. There is legal precedent here too, which is something else we should have covered off earlier: the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill of 2013. So we are on rock-solid legal ground—or the Otama Rural Water Supply committee and the Gore District Council are, in bringing this forward.

In answer to Rino Tirikatene’s question about which marae: it’s not the Hokonui one; it’s the one on the entrance to Gore, just at the north-eastern side there. So that covers off those points. Thank you.

Every now and then in these committees comes a speaker and a speech with courage, conviction, precision, and a devotion to making better law for every single New Zealander. I want to say, on behalf of the ACT Party, that we heard just such a speech earlier this afternoon from one Brett Hudson. He showed the conviction required to make better laws when he pointed out that clause 3(a)—the specific clause in Part 1—may not properly reflect the intention of those users.

I want to warmly encourage the member in charge, Mark Patterson, to reconsider his decision not to draft an amendment to clause 3(a) so that wording can better reflect the intention of the system’s users. I want to give my moral support to Brett Hudson. I want to tell him that I’m right behind you mate, and you should draft that amendment. You should get out there, you should draft it, and you should put it on the table so that the people can vote on the wording of clause 3(a). Look, Brett Hudson, if he doesn’t do it, I don’t know how he’ll live with himself. Know that I’m right behind you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just reflect on what the previous speaker, David Seymour, has just said. I am working on an amendment through a friend of mine right at the moment. I’d just like to acknowledge, actually, Mr Tirikatene and his kind words, and Mr Seymour’s kind words, and just respond. Although I have something new I want to say, I just want to respond to what Mr Patterson said.

This is not any form of game playing. It is simply a reflection of what I learnt and took from spending time in Gore and listening to what the people who are scheme users said about what it meant to them, and, to a degree, some long-held anger that they feel that they would be wrongly dispossessed of what they felt was always theirs. So there is no game playing behind this. And if I can, before this part expires, get a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the Table, I will absolutely do so.

The reason for a second call was actually about clause 4, the interpretation, and it is another question I have for the member in the chair, under “scheme assets”. I think it is absolutely important—critical, in fact—that we get this right. In this element of that clause, it lists down what I imagine is an attempt to identify every piece of asset in the scheme as, hopefully, it exists today. I look through that list, and I can’t possibly know if it’s 100 percent accurate or complete, nor would anyone expect me to. But that raises the very question: if this bill should pass its third reading and subsequently become law and we have not included—

💬 Hon Jacqui Dean: It’s an option.

It’s an option—well, all parties are agreeing with it so far—then that interpretation will fundamentally define what the assets of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme are.

If, in passing this, we get that wrong, we could actually cause some real problems to scheme users and, in fact, actually, to the district council. Whether we see it as a transfer of assets or a return of assets, we’re still absolutely shifting the ownership of those assets to a new body—a body that is not part of the district council and is not subject to a levy on the wider ratepayers of the district. If we get the assets wrong, we actually risk a situation where some of the physical infrastructure which is understood and has always been part of the delivery of water to scheme users could inadvertently be left out and therefore not fall under the ownership of that through the new company. If that is the case, then it would remain the responsibility of the Gore District Council to maintain and upgrade whatever that asset component is.

It could be something really quite small in the scheme of its size and individual value, but if it is integral to deliver the scheme to one or more of the users, then we could actually inadvertently upset the whole purpose of the bill by actually not transferring what is simply—because, by assets, we’re transferring the responsibility of the delivery of that water through those assets. So we could actually create a problem where they don’t own it all, and where the council remains obligated—through expenditure and rates from local district ratepayers who are otherwise to be absolved of any responsibility for the scheme—to maintain and upgrade one or more elements of it, no matter how small and in some ways seemingly insignificant they may be.

Beyond that, though, if that turned out to be the case, then we could actually have introduced what is a really serious operational management problem. If one or more assets that are not captured in here are now part of what amounts to a system of delivering water to the scheme users, then, if the responsibility and obligation of some part of it remains on the council, they could actually—again, not necessarily deliberately—through the application of their own management and processes, prevent or place further obligations on the scheme company that they might not choose to do so themselves.

For instance, the scheme, through the company, may choose to want to upgrade a part of it. If it transpires, in the process of doing that work, that they discover that some elements of the system in that area have actually not been transferred and, therefore, remain under the control and ownership of the Gore District Council, then their own processes and operational processes will play a part in that and may actually prevent the scheme company from undertaking the work on what it understands to be its assets. That would mean that we had failed. In the real world, in the real use of the scheme and delivery of water to its owners, its users, we would have failed in what we are seeking to do here.

My view is that we can, again, put a small clause or small words in here to alleviate that risk or to mitigate that risk. We could have, for instance, in a new clause 4(b)(xii), words that said, “and any other physical components of the current Otama Rural Water Supply scheme not listed above”. We could simply have blanket words that said that we have a scheme that delivers water to the Ōtama rural community—the scheme users—and it is wholly separate on its own. It doesn’t rely on elements of the reticulated water or water systems of the Gore District Council; it is its own scheme. Some might call it “belts and braces”; I wouldn’t. But it would simply mean that we’d have a small catch-all that would mean that we won’t inadvertently neglect to include some elements of the system that delivers that water to scheme users, such that in the future it might otherwise be discovered, through a slip-up, through a small error, or through the missing of a component or components, that we had failed to actually achieve the true and full purpose of this bill.

I’d ask the Minister—well, one day maybe, but I’ll ask the member in the chair to reflect on that, again, in good faith. I’m not seeking to slow the passage of the bill here. I’m not seeking to make it unwieldy or in any way compromise any party who has an interest and support in this bill. I am simply offering a small suggestion that, if we were to take it up, could ensure that we don’t inadvertently undermine the purpose of this legislation with our intent, but, also, obviously, from the perspective of the scheme users. I would ask Mr Patterson to reflect on that and perhaps agree to it. We could, very rapidly, put an SOP in to do this—working together, across the Chamber, as, in fact, the support for this bill has shown to be. So, Mr Patterson, please reflect on that, if you will, and respond.

Thank you, Mr Hudson. Just in answer to your substantive point there, I’ve been looking through the list of assets: plant and land—land described in Schedule 1—the Pyramid well, the Pyramid pump station, all reservoirs associated with the scheme, all pump stations associated with the scheme, all break tanks associated with the scheme, all gravity and pressure mains associated with the scheme, etc., etc., down to valves and meters and, of course, the important water permit. So it is hard for me to conceive.

I note you are the chairman of the Governance and Administration Committee. I would imagine that the select committee process would have gone through this with some fine-tooth comb as to making sure that they had everything covered; it does look like it’s covered to me. If there is an amendment coming forward in that, there is the prospect that there’s a very small component that may be missing, but it does seem inconceivable to me, looking at what appears to be a very exhaustive list. Although, as you’ve referred, there is not a catch-all for anything that may fall outside of that. So I do concede that small point. Thank you.

Unlike the very capable chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Brett Hudson, I will make a very brief contribution for the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill.

Now, when we talk about assets, actually, most people talk about the wells, the pipes, and the concrete. Actually, for me, it is a very beautiful piece of land, because when I was in Gore, Brett and I and some other people went to see the scheme. It was very beautiful scenery. I took some pictures, actually, that I sent back to my friends in China, and I said, “These are New Zealand farms.”, and they were simply astonished at how beautiful the farms were.

So the bill itself is largely about the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme from the Gore District Council to the Otama Rural Water Supply committee. So we have some parties here: one is the Otama Rural Water Supply committee, second is the Gore District Council, and then we have the users. So these are different parties. Now, I would say, when we come to the users, my definition of the user, actually, is very different from the literal definition of a user, because these users are not just paying the fees, the cost of maintenance; they were also the contributors to the construction of the scheme. So, in that sense, from the very beginning, these users did have the sense of ownership, although, in reality, at the moment you can see they do not necessarily own the scheme.

So the historical, I would say, weakness—because on the one hand, the Otama Rural Water Supply committee has the right to govern the operation of the scheme; on the other hand, the operation and all the maintenance has been done by the council. So the council looks after all the details, including the field work, including repairmen, and including technical advice—all these things. So you have a committee governing the operation, and you have the council doing the operation, and then you have the users paying for the operation. So this is a very complicated process.

Well, who owns the scheme? Well, while there is no clear definition of ownership here, the council itself, traditionally or historically, has the sense that the council has the legal responsibility for the scheme. In that sense, the council feels that it has ownership over the scheme. On the other hand, the users over these years—a few decades—built a scheme and they paid for the maintenance, and you have the committee formed by the users, although there is a representative from the council. So overall, the committee has been run by the representatives of the users. This is, basically, a reasonably complicated situation.

The bill itself will try to resolve this kind of complexity by authorising or by requiring the council to transfer the ownership to the Otama Rural Water Supply committee. That is a good thing, because when we were in Gore, we listened to the submissions, to the hearings, and then all the users were very, very keen and very, very enthusiastic. They supplied us with good food and very warmly welcomed us. So they really believed that they owned the scheme, and the council itself now believes they can do that, because some other rural water supply schemes in that area have been transferred to the users.

So, therefore, this is not necessarily a precedent. This is, simply, a bill—a very useful bill, although it’s a very small bill—to make this happen. I believe this will serve the users, and I believe the users do have the right to own the scheme. The scheme pitches on a very, very beautiful piece of land. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and, of course, you’re aware of why I’m rising to speak, but members across the committee may not be. I’ve taken my own advice and have submitted the amendment that will give the effect to clause 3 that I spoke about first on the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill, that will change “follow to authorise a transfer” to, instead, “to return” those assets to the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme users, through the vehicle of the company.

So I took your advice, Mr Seymour, and I do thank my staff member Mr John Brinsley-Pirie, who has worked feverishly, in a few seconds, to make sure that that amendment would arrive in this committee in time for it to be tabled and considered. I will just simply reiterate—I’m not going to waste time by taking 4½ minutes on this—to members that this is completely in good faith. I offer this change because I, as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, travelled to Gore and heard from the scheme users, and I think this better reflects the purpose of this legislation from their perspective. I would ask the member in the chair and members across the committee to support the amendment.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mr Hudson, the difficulty I have is that we’re still getting copies for members to have a look at. I’m happy to give the call to Mr Patterson, but he hasn’t actually seen the amendment yet. So you might like to talk a little longer.

OK. I can keep going, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. So, I can now slow down. I thought I was being rushed to be silent, and I certainly wasn’t going to muck around with the Chair at this stage.

So an amendment is now coming to the table, and copies are being made for members to peruse. It is a simple change; it is what I suggested in my first speech. It simply reflects a very significant thing for the people of Gore and the Otama scheme users, but a simple thing in terms of this Parliament. The clause currently talks about a process that the council must follow to authorise a transfer of a scheme, which includes assets, to Otama Rural Water Ltd. While legally that is an accurate description, my point that I made, that I learnt from our visit to Gore and from listening to the words of scheme users—many scheme users—was that they felt the assets should always have been theirs. They didn’t ask for the entity they used to manage it—which was a pragmatic entity, it was a group of scheme users getting together using elbow grease, using their own knowledge, using their own tools, using their own equipment to first build a supply system, then to maintain it, then to upgrade it, and to have the will to continuously maintain it. They felt they were dispossessed of what were their assets and their system. They felt very strongly about this. They didn’t use the word “theft” that I recall, but one could tell by listening to them that that’s exactly how they felt about it—that the legal system had dispossessed them of a system that they had always felt was theirs.

So this small change—small change—which reflects an understanding of a return of assets through a company to the people who had first created them and had spent their own time, effort, and money in maintaining and upgrading them for what is now approaching 50 years, gives this Parliament the opportunity, when—and hopefully it will—this bill becomes law, to be absolutely sure that it is written in a way that reflects the purpose of the legislation, not simply from a dry interpretation as members of Parliament or the legal system but, indeed, for what it means to the people who have always, in their view, owned and always run the scheme. I ask the Minister and all members to support this amendment.

Just in response to the amendment and also the—well, firstly, the list of assets and inserting a catch-all, which was referenced before as something that may clarify the bill. I’m reliably informed, and it’s there for all to see, that clause 4(a) does provide that catch-all when it says that the assets “means the real and personal property of the Council that is held or used (whether solely or partially) for the purposes of the scheme;”, which I think perfectly covers off that catch-all provision.

In terms of the amendment, it is semantics—it really is. I mean, I was there at that meeting, that heated meeting in a local hall that was bulging at the seams, and they are passionate about this. This does mean a lot to them, but I can tell you now that not one of those people are going to be poring over the minutiae of this bill and looking at whether it says “return” or “authorise” a transfer. No one will give a flying toss about that. What they are after is an outcome. They’re after this Parliament to deliver and to not get bogged down in the minutiae of small phrases that may or may not reflect the historical legal precedent. I’m told by the officials that “return”, indeed, would not actually be appropriate to change ownership or to ensure that property in the scheme is transferred to ownership of the company. So, actually, legally it wouldn’t wash either. With that, I’ll conclude.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brett Hudson to clause 3 be agreed to:

replace clause 3 with:

3 Purpose

The purpose of this Act is—

(a) To specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow to return Otama Rural Water Supply Scheme to scheme users through Otama Rural Water Limited.