Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

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

It is a great honour to be asked by the local community and the Gore District Council to bring this bill to the House and shepherd it through to this point. That said, I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker and local Labour list MP Liz Craig, who I know had been involved intricately in bringing this bill to the House as well, particularly Hamish. I would also like to commend the Governance and Administration Committee, that travelled to Gore to hear, I think, 14 submissions under the guidance and leadership of chairman Brett Hudson.

This bill may not represent New Zealand’s nuclear-free moment, but it is a really important issue for the local people involved, and it’s really important for this community—one that contributes so much, particularly to the economy of New Zealand with the primary products that come out of that district and, of course, Southland as a whole, that produces, I think, 14 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise exports with just 1.5 percent of the population. Ōtama and the surrounding districts are absolutely a key part of that, so when they need the Government and when they need this Parliament to sort their issues out, it is only right that we should be there for them.

The purpose of this bill is to specify the process for which the Gore District Council transfers the ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Ltd. The bill will allow the Gore District Council to override section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires councils to meet their obligations for water supply under this Act. Councils must not divest ownership of water schemes supplying more than 200 households, and, of course, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme, as we’ve heard in earlier readings, supplies 223 households, two schools, and the local Ngāi Tahu Hokonui Rūnanga marae. In seeking the exemption, the Gore council are drawing upon 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 of 2013.

My own involvement in this matter stems back, actually, to May of 2017. As an aspiring politician, I got a tip-off that this was a local matter that was generating some heat and it might be worth my while travelling the hour from my own home in Lawrence to the Ōtama Hall to get a bit of a sense of what was going on. What greeted me was actually a pretty familiar sight to those of us brought up in rural communities: a packed rural hall with the local councillors and the officials and the local mayor and chief executive lined up the front while some pretty heated discussion and debate was going on from the local householders and landowners. The catalyst, really, was the fact that the Gore council had been managing the scheme—the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee had been governing it, but the council had been running it. The farmers, being astute businessman as they were, were concerned about escalating costs and were looking to bring private enterprise in and get some pricing.

This unlocked what had been a historical ownership dispute. What had previously been assumed by the council was that they had ownership of the scheme, because in the wash-up of the Southland County Council in the amalgamations of the 1989 Local Government Act, they assumed that legally they owned the scheme. The local farmers, though, contended that they owned the scheme. It had gone back, in fact, to the local Otago Federated Farmers branch meeting in around 1969-1970, where local farmer Ian Robertson—and, Ian, I know you will be watching now. You’re 90 years old now, I believe—still a very astute observer of politics and someone whose advice I draw on regularly, but your influence in this scheme is acknowledged. It was soon local farmers—and there’s some very notable local names here, and I’m sure Hamish will traverse some as well, but Stuart Baird, Charlie Kerse, Hughie Chittook, Les Morrison, and, of course, no mention of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme is complete without acknowledging the 25 years of chairmanship of Tom Affleck. Of course, we all recall Tom being here for the second reading of the speech and the great thrill he got from seeing his work being acknowledged in this House.

The scheme itself started in 1972, and the farmers themselves paid for it. They paid with their own money—they were, of course, in different times before the health and safety regulations of today—and put the original scheme in, needing 90 hours of their own labour to be contributed and a small loan from the Southland County Council, which, when Tom’s talking about it, he always emphasises the fact that that was paid back in double-quick time. Stage two and three followed soon after, and by the time stage three went through in 1976, it was providing stock water and potable water for houses for 73,000 hectares, and the Government actually put in a one-for-one subsidy in stage three. Isn’t it good to see the Provincial Growth Fund back enabling efforts like that to continue in regional New Zealand now?

The well itself is by the Pyramid Bridge, and the committee itself has governed this particular scheme beautifully over all of that time. They’ve provided high-quality water with good consistency and quality. They’ve upgraded the main line in the last 15 years, all the while running healthy surpluses and capital and depreciation accounted for.

So the upshot of the meeting was that there was a referendum that was called for by the council, and 76 percent of the respondents, which was actually 75 percent of the people that were eligible, voted in favour of the committee taking ownership of the water and forming a company for which that could be worked under. Of course, the backdrop of this, and where the contention probably could’ve been, is it does go against the direction of public policy, and we do know that the Havelock water crisis of 2015, the response to that, and the work that Minister Mahuta is doing in this field with the Three Waters Review will all be taken into account, but we’ve got to keep to the matter at hand here, which is we are operating under the laws of today. We’re not presuming anything. We have the legal precedent, as I said earlier, of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act 2013, and the water committee have committed to meeting any obligations that will come from any increase in requirements for water quality. I will acknowledge the select committee and the committee of the whole House for beefing up those clauses—particularly clause 8(1) and 8(3).

So, without further ado, I’d like to thank the officials for the good work they did, particularly in travelling down to Gore. As mentioned before, I thank again the select committee for the good work and good intent—Paul Eagle, I see, just pulled in here, still pulls me aside all the time to talk about the quality of the smoko that he got down there that day—and I thank members from across the House that engaged positively in this bill. So, Tom, the ball is back in your court, shortly. When we pass this bill, you will get the ability to take this board—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Just before the member finishes, can the member say the whole name for the record, and that is the tradition in the House—full name.

So, Tom Affleck, chairman of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme, the ball is back in your court, and we know that you will guide this further astutely, as you have for the last 25 years. So it is an absolute pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Congratulations to Mark Patterson for bringing this bill before us as the local list MP, and it’s a good thing for a relatively new member to be able to advocate for the community in which he lives. I also want to congratulate Tom Affleck and his committee of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme for their hard work in bringing this bill to the House and hosting the Governance and Administration Committee so very well down in Gore as the committee had a look into the issues. Credit is due to the committee for taking the interest to travel down to the lower South and just see what a rural water scheme looks like on the ground, because it is quite different from, say, for example, Wellington Water, or even a water scheme in a relatively small town. In Masterton, it’s quite different. In Levin, it’s quite different. In Shannon, it’s quite different.

A rural water scheme is literally a water scheme, as in the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme case, which was built by a farmer group who had got together and who get together in groups all around New Zealand historically. In fact, there’s quite a strong tradition of groups of farmers getting together, and, when I lived in rural North Otago, we lived at the top of a hill at the end of a rural water scheme. So those of you who do live rurally will understand that living at the top of a hill at the end of a rural water scheme is not a great thing when you have young babies and all you get out of the taps is slaters, because that’s what can come along if you haven’t got your allocation of water, and your tank isn’t quite big enough for the task. It is different. So you’ve got to take your hat off to any group of farmers who have those meetings. They might go down to the local hall, they might go down to the pub, they might go into different people’s homes, and they get together to put that essential infrastructure in.

That infrastructure goes in for stock water—very important in drought-prone areas of New Zealand, as North Otago is and will continue to be; and, of course, not so much in Gore, but, certainly, stock water is important to all animal life—and then, of course, water for the homestead—potable water for the homestead. So the group of farmers will have sat around the table, and they’d have done the costings, and they would have got the local town lawyer in and had a look at what needed to be done in terms of easements and talking to the council and ownership, and then there will have been working fees. I know this certainly with, in my area, the western rural water scheme. That scheme was quite old, but, I tell you what, the pipes would burst seemingly just about every week, and you’d find that the flag on your water tank would go down, down, down, and you go, “OK. Look, it’s going down”. It will keep going down over a few days and then go “clunk” against the top of the tank, and then you’d know you’re in trouble, and it was either because the water scheme had been turned off or there was a leak, so you’d go out and have a look for the leak.

That is life on a rural water scheme—or was life, because, these days, and I’m going back 30 years here, most water schemes now have evolved into a much tidier, more efficient sort of operation. So it is with the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. Mark Patterson has given a bit of the history of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme and the process that the farm group needed to go to in order to transfer membership to the farmer group. So I don’t think it would be useful for me to go over those things. The one thing I would say about any process like that is that one needs to have not only agreement of the members of the order group but the general agreement and support of the community, and without that it makes it very difficult. But that was achieved by the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, and, now, here we are in the Parliament, taking the last steps.

I know others will mention the Havelock North campylobacter incident, which was devastating for that community, and, when we were in Government, we initiated a report into that and there were two reports. The second one came to Government and into the hands of the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who then has embarked on a three waters programme of reform. I mention that because rural water schemes have that quirky, “slater in the water” rich history, but there is a risk to human health with water schemes. It is well-known that water schemes rural and larger, as we now know from Havelock North, can fail. So National does support, broadly, the programme of reform which has been proposed by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta; although we haven’t seen very much of it, so it is a little concerning that progress seems to be glacial.

I turn now to the New Zealand Labour Party view. We did report back to the House with a select committee report which contained parties’ views. There was support for the bill—of course there was, because it’s a local bill. It had done everything right, it’s aims were quite proper, and it will have an outcome that benefits not only the local community that it serves but also water quality. But the Labour Party did take the view that this bill should be set aside, or deferred, until after Cabinet announces its decisions regarding the drinking-water reforms. It says that these policy announcements are expected in June 2019; don’t bet on it—don’t bet on it. There’s no sign at all that the House, or we, or anyone is going to see any clear direction around the three waters reform, and that is a concern because the three waters work was announced with great pomp and circumstance, and trips overseas and over to Australia, and great, lofty plans about what was going to happen with aggregated, compulsory water schemes and raising drinking-water standards. What have we seen so far? Very little—very little.

In the year of delivery, the Minister of Local Government, Nanaia Mahuta, has delivered very, very little. In fact, the only deliverable, if you like, has been a bill which sits on the Order Paper, in the name of the Hon David Clark, which is the drinking-water standards bill, and it’s sitting somewhere—here we go—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order!

But I am returning to the Otama—thank you—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Members shouldn’t be anticipating what’s coming up on the Order Paper. The member should return to her speech.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. So the drinking water: there is lodged, and it is known—and forgive me if I transgress, although I don’t think I am—there is a drinking-water standards bill, which is part of the three waters work. Well, you know, let’s do the math. There’s only about 14 months until this current Government rises to contest the next election, and we’re not seeing a lot of progress. So that is why for the National Party, while we cannot stop the Labour delaying tactic in this bill; we weren’t in a position to stop them having the view that this Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill shouldn’t go ahead.

But I just feel that it was not taking the interests of the Ōtama water scheme community first and foremost. What it was doing, I think, is—I don’t know—just being a little too cautious, perhaps, because the water scheme, upon being transferred into the ownership of the water scheme owners, is still required to comply with drinking-water regulations as they stand now. So there was no benefit in delaying consideration of this bill, in putting it aside and deferring it—for what; how many years? Nobody knows, but how many years, leaving all those farmers waiting? We couldn’t support that, and so we didn’t.

Neither could we support the Supplementary Order Paper 206 of Marama Davidson: “In clause 8(1)(d), after ‘[transferred] the Company’, … insert ‘, including its ability to meet any relevant regulatory requirements’.” No point. It has to anyway. So, again, here was a bit if meddling by the Green Party and trying to put more regulation in, which they always seem to be very in favour of—not needed. Perhaps it would have been more useful if the Green Party had actually understood regulations around drinking water, but that is as may be. I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m delighted to speak at the third reading of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill.

💬 Hon Members: “Gorre”.

Have to roll those Rs—have to roll those Rs. But this is a great, great day and a great occasion. When it comes to third readings, it’s all about giving the acknowledgments that are definitely due. Can I acknowledge Mark Patterson, sponsor of the bill, and fellow local members down in the Clutha-Southland region, Hamish Walker, Liz Craig, and my good self as well. I want to acknowledge the Gore District Council and the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, who have, over many years, worked together to ultimately get to this point now where we have a bill which will clarify, once and for all, the ownership of a very important water-supply scheme, which was built, funded, and established by the good farmers and rural folk in that beautiful part of the country.

So I don’t intend to prolong this speech, but I simply want to acknowledge the Ōtama committee. I look forward to them ultimately going through all of the processes which are prescribed in this bill to ultimately have ownership vested back in the owners of this scheme—the households and the farms that built the scheme, including one marae, which is affiliated to te Hokonui Rūnanga. I want to acknowledge, just lastly, my whanaungas down there in Hokonui. When acknowledging them, I acknowledge the two Ngāti Māmoe chiefs, Te Rakitauneke and his taniwha Matamata, which you can see through the Hokonui Hills; and also Paroparo Te Whenua, who resided in the waterfalls of Mataura there.

I want to thank Taare Bradshaw and the team and Terry Nicholas, and all my relations down there in Hokonui for the work that they did in supporting this bill. I have drunk many cups of tea at that marae, and I can say the water is absolutely fine. I am looking forward to seeing the ultimate transfer of these assets to the company. I congratulate them on all the work that they’ve done and I support this bill at its third reading. Kia ora.

I’d just like to start by acknowledging fellow member Mark Patterson. Mark, you’ve done a good job of this, mate. It’s not always easy in your first term—as I’m working out—getting a bill through the House. You’ve worked well with both sides, so I just want to congratulate you on that.

To the previous speaker, Rino Tirikatene, you represent a large patch of New Zealand—the entire South Island. Just for the record, I’ll have you know, Gore is the brown trout capital of the world. I’m quite happy to take you on a personal tour there. Just for the member beside you—Mr Paul Eagle—one of the highlights of the day when the Governance and Administration Committee visited Gore was your comment to me after we had some amazing Southland cheese rolls, some amazing kai, and you said to me, “Hey mate, I’ve got a question for you.” I said, “Oh, what’s that Paul?”, and he goes, “Oh, when are you getting out of this political business?” I said, “Well, what do you mean?”, and he goes, “Oh, I wouldn’t mind a seat like this—the people down here and it’s a pretty beautiful part of the country.” So we had a lot of fun that day.

Can I just acknowledge the excellent work of the chair of the select committee, Brett Hudson. It’s a hard-working committee which seems to have quite a high number of bills going through it. I just want to also thank all those other members. To the chairman Tom Affleck: Tom, I’ll be speaking about your submission shortly. No doubt you’re watching. I hear the weather’s pretty chilly down there. So I hope you’ve got a heater.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’m just going to interrupt the member for a moment. There’s a lot of use of personal pronouns in the member’s speech, bringing the Speaker into the debate. The member should alter his use of the word “you”, and if all members can note, when they’re mentioning other members or members of the public, they should say their entire name—their first and surname, I should say.

Thanks, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tom Affleck, I’m sure you’re watching. To the other committee members, Hamish Mackay, John Kerse, Chris Affleck, Gavin Cruickshank, David Smith, and Donald Johnson, you should be proud of your efforts. You’ve done a fantastic job, and I hope you’re staying warm down south—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): “They”—“they”, not “you”.

This bill is a practical and fair solution for the local farmers. This is not a significant economic asset. The people that use it—the farmers, the shareholders—they’re the ones that have spent the last 50 or so years getting the scheme up and running. I think this is a lot more than just a water scheme. Those original innovative farmers back in the early 1970s, they’ve inspired future generations. I think there are a few families of third generation farmers that are now using this scheme. This is like history, and it probably won’t make the grade for a Hollywood movie, but I think you could write a reasonably good book about the history of the water scheme.

I just want to talk a bit about some of the submissions that were made in Gore and also written submissions to the Governance and Administration Committee, and this gives you a sense of how much pride there is in the community for the water scheme. George Morrison, he made a really good point that the man who pays is the man who has the say. His father was the local Southland County Council member who played a vital part in getting it off the ground. He also made mention that the county at the time had no intention of taking the scheme over, and it’s not fair and not right that it’s owned by the council.

Another submitter, David Smith, also sits on the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, made some interesting points. One of those was that after leaving school in the mid-1970s, he volunteered to work on the insulation of this scheme. He goes on to say that the scheme’s success is obvious, and he wants the ownership rightfully passed back to the scheme committee.

Another submitter, Alan Falconer, purchased his property 50 years ago and is one of the original parties to the scheme: “Without the Scheme, the ability to carry livestock was … limited.” In the primary referendum, he voted in favour of the moral owners becoming the legal owners, and I think that’s a good point to note.

I just want to talk a bit further about Alan’s submission, as it paints a picture of what it was like when the scheme was first implemented and why it’s so, so, so needed. He recalls being in situations during summer months when his farm was receiving no water: “Investigation indicated that sufficient water was being introduced to meet the demands of consumers, however no water was reaching my tank on the hill. Further investigation, after checking for leaks etc., discovered a dairy farmer requiring more water than his entitlement, had chosen to bypass the restrictor valve”—therefore taking away water from other users. The committee, on finding out this information, “acted immediately and made it very clear that any unauthorised tampering with the equipment would result in the offending property being permanently disconnected from the Scheme. As a consequence water flowed to the end of the line!” That sums it up for Southland people—good, honest, hard-working people.

Another person who’s played a huge role is Hamish Mackay, a wonderful chap. In his submission, he said that “the scheme has been very well managed by the … committee in conjunction with the [Gore District Council] 3 Waters department.”, and on that note, I’d just like to acknowledge the Gore District Council.

💬 Chris Bishop: Yeah, they’ve done a good job.

They have done a good job, Chris Bishop. Upon discovering this, they’ve been very good to work with and held the referendum, where three out of four people turned out—just over three out of four, I think; 75 percent turned out—and 76 percent supported it. Hamish goes on to say that, as a consumer, he’s “happy to provide labour and machinery if and when required, to help on capital works projects.”

Another favourite submitter—one of my personal favourites—was Douglas Wing, who has been a user of the water supplied by the scheme since 1976 and has since subscribed for around 50 years: “My only usage of water from the Scheme for the last 43 years has been for stock water”. Over the years of connection with the scheme, he has “contributed to the upkeep through mainly providing labour for some maintenance tasks [and] machinery on occasion”.

💬 John Gardyne: “We use the water from the Otama water scheme for our livestock and homes.”—he’s been involved in this scheme for three generations—“Clarence Gardyne was on the original committee and served as secretary. And I can remember him working with farmers to organise work days to lay pipe lines and negotiate with farmers access to put pipe lines through their land and carting abestos pipes on tractor trailers to trenches dug by the southland county grader. So 50 years have nearly past with the committee taking an active role in the governance and helping out with the physical work as well. The committee have had skin in the game all the way, it was the water they used for their homes as well as their livestock, that drove the committee to have good quality water as well as affordable water that was reliable in supply.”

Last, but not least, Tom Affleck, who has been involved in the scheme since it was first proposed. His property ranges from 100 metres to 250 metres above sea level. “Water was [only] available in the bottom of the gullies or creeks. Household water was roof water, a small spring with a pump in a gully that barely saw the sun during the winter. To have water easily accessible to stock in every paddock has been a huge advantage in stock management and also a happy family with no water restrictions.” He’s a long serving member, as he was voted on to the committee in 1972 as secretary and has been chairman since 1993. “Initial financial contributions was $200.00 for the 1st tank”—remember this is a few decades ago, because that was a lot of money back then—“$100.00 to the 2nd tank and $50.00 to 3rd tank plus 90 hours of labour from every consumer. In later years the committee and other consumers have contributed voluntary labour to lay new pipes, renewing the reservoirs and permanently fencing the same.”

One of Gore’s famous sons, Jamie Mackay, who is actually the current host of The Country, a farming show which is played daily from Monday to Friday, is also from there, and I’d like to also acknowledge Jamie for his interesting interview last week with Shane Jones. This is the difference between the National Party and other parties: we were founded for and by farmers—incredibly disappointing to hear Shane Jones say to Jamie, “If farmers aren’t milking cows, they’re moaning.” Well, they’re certainly not moaning at the moment. They should be absolutely proud of themselves, and well done to the committee.

Thank you very much e Te Māngai. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak on a bill in which I had the privilege of going to the beautiful town of Gore to see what this issue meant to local people, and to hear those submissions in person was also a great opportunity. We received 14 oral submissions in Wellington and in Gore. The committee has also recommended some minor amendments to this bill, but the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill is a local bill that we believe will help local consumers regain control of a local water scheme.

The key issue in this area has been that the ownership of the scheme has been unclear as to whether that sits with those who administer and look after the scheme or whether that would be local council. So this bill makes the ownership clear by vesting it into those of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, known as and referred to in the bill as the committee.

I think it’s important that I briefly outline how this bill sits with Labour values and sits with the wider work that we are doing in terms of the Three Waters Review. This Government has taken a strong view that the management of drinking water, storm water, and waste water is a priority. We believe that those things are very important for New Zealanders, and it’s important to make sure that the quality of our water is of a high standard and keeps our people and our children safe.

It’s important that the committee, going forward, are fully committed—and, when I say “the committee”, I mean the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee—to ensuring the safety of users and to complying with all of its public health and other legal obligations. As part of the transfer process, the council and the committee have been agreeable in developing a water safety plan going forward. I believe that that is a good pathway.

Just to note, in conclusion, that on 15 May, a decision was made by the committee and the council to start chlorinating the scheme’s water and to provide that that would be safe for drinking purposes, and that’s important.

So without further ado, I’d like to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Mark Patterson, and also the local member, Hamish Walker, for their work in this space. I commend this bill to the House.

It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill, and I too wish to acknowledge the members from the area—firstly, Mr Patterson, for promoting the bill into the House along with the Gore District Council. He’s done a great job for the people in the area to promote their interests around this matter and, ultimately, to see this to fruition as law. But I’d also like to recognise my colleague and the MP for Clutha-Southland, Hamish Walker, who’s done an exemplary job in promoting the interests of his entire electorate, including the people of Ōtama and Gore. Mr Walker accompanied us on our select committee day in Gore to hear submissions, and he substituted regularly on to the Governance and Administration Committee to be a part of the proceedings that saw this bill come successfully through select committee, well amended so that it exited that process in better shape. He has definitely played a very constructive and very real role to the point where we are about to support this third reading and see this enacted into law.

When this was first presented—certainly, from my perspective—and we got to read the submissions and then hear from the people of Ōtama, I found it a very easy position to reach that finding a way to navigate through the bill to an outcome that would see those assets back in the hands of the people who felt they’d always owned them is a very easy thing to accept, principally because the history is so cogent to that position. It feels so natural. It’s just under 50 years ago now, of course, when those residents—scheme users—from Ōtama put together not only their own capital but their own physical labour to institute a water system that was principally about stock water for their farms but, obviously, over time also for a school and a marae, to put into place their own water system.

The country is built on a lot of legends—some might say “myths” in some instances but a lot of legends—about hard-working Kiwis just mucking in, getting on with life, making the most of what they have and making things work, such as the old number eight wire mentality. I felt this was a great example of that—local farmers, principally farmers, getting together, having a problem about water to, obviously, improve their lands and improve their yields, and getting stuck in and doing it for themselves and then maintaining that system in what was really more of a collegial type of arrangement rather than a deeply complicated contract based under law, one where they then maintained that for many years, ensuring that, again, through their financial contributions but also the continued contribution of their own labour, the system would be maintained and improved where required, and there was at least one major capital upgrade—one major physical upgrade—to that system over this period of time.

I think we should probably phrase it as “an accident”—an accidental case that, upon someone reviewing the law and determining that the structure that existed for this collective, this group of people from Ōtama did not support the position of ownership of assets under New Zealand law. So the assets for this water supply were, effectively, transferred or deemed to be under the ownership of the council. Now, those users—the scheme payers, the people who have paid every cent to both the original deployment of the system and every cent of its maintenance and improvement over the years—became quite shocked when they discovered what it really meant: that the assets they had built and maintained were no longer theirs. Some of them, we heard, felt quite aggrieved by that, and so, reading that and hearing that, I’ve found it quite easy to accept that it was the right thing to do to return the assets to their rightful owners and to work through a bill so that we could make sure that that would be the ultimate outcome, and, hopefully, in a few minutes, when this has passed its third reading, that is indeed what will happen.

It wasn’t without some challenges, and I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Government members of the select committee. They had very honestly held concerns with the Three Waters Review that’s under way and how findings and decisions from that might then have implications on the scheme and that, in transferring it back into the ownership of the scheme, users might in some way prevent decisions made by Government from being reflected in the future of this scheme and its use. We were able to work through that—work through the members’ concerns—but equally importantly, with officials, work through the provisions of the bill to make sure that the potential risk at least wouldn’t be realised in the future. So the scheme company that will hold the assets is going to be required to ensure that they meet Government regulation and law, particularly, but not solely, with respect to drinking-water standards, because that is something that I think most people foresee as likely to come from the Three Waters Review. So there is that safeguard, which I think is important.

There was also consideration about how we as Parliament, and indeed the local council and the ratepayers, can be confident that this is what the people who will bear the ongoing burden—because they’ve borne it all this time, anyway—of the maintenance and upkeep of the water scheme want, and so, taking from local government processes, officials recommended, and the committee agreed and Parliament has continued to endorse, the idea that there must be another referendum held within five years of the enactment of this legislation that gets a majority of people that do wish for the assets to return to their ownership and will acknowledge, in doing so, through that water company that the onus, financial and otherwise, into the future will remain with those scheme users through that company.

So that can give us all confidence, particularly Parliament, because we’ve obviously got to pass this law to allow that to happen, but it can give us, it can give the district council and their officials, and it can give ratepayers across the district and particularly people within the scheme geographical area confidence that should that referendum be successful—and the previous referendum would suggest it certainly will be—then everyone can have confidence that it is the will of the people in the area and it is therefore the right thing to do.

I want to make a comment about the people of Ōtama, or certainly the people that participated in this bill. What a wonderful, wonderful group of New Zealanders. I mean, Southland and the South Island are already known, are already legendary, for hospitality even in this country, which itself has a reputation around the world for hospitality. That was true when we went and visited for the select committee, but it has been true all the way through with the way that the proponents from Ōtama have engaged with us in this process, supported us in this process, and, particularly, welcomed us.

Every one of them would be worthy of mention, but I wish to pay tribute specifically to Tom Affleck, a man who’s been at the forefront of this water-supply system for many, many years. He has really championed the cause. I particularly want to remark that he’s got a remarkable physical appearance, a similarity to someone who I can only presume is his younger cousin, Ben. I’ve seen him in the House here for the second reading and thought to myself, “It’s an uncanny resemblance, and it’s a shame his presumable cousin couldn’t be a part of the process as well.” We all would have enjoyed that. But Mr Affleck was indeed a wonderful champion for the people of Ōtama and a wonderful gentleman to work with as we worked through this bill. I don’t think we’ve had a single voice—certainly, since the select committee—in this Parliament that has given any dissent to what we are seeking to do.

What we are seeking to do is not a dry piece of law. What we are seeking to do is to acknowledge and return a set of important business and personal assets to a group of people who in themselves and their forebears, if you will, created and have maintained every piece, with their own finances and their own physical labour. They built the system, they’ve maintained the system, and they want to remain responsible for it. It is only fitting that we in this Parliament do them the respect and honour of returning to them the assets and responsibility which always really have been theirs.

Tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party supports the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I think that some of the comments that Mr Hudson made about the strong community desire to have ownership of this water scheme—that is one of the reasons, in terms of the strong local support for that demonstrated in the referendum that was held, that the Green Party is supporting the bill. There was a 75 percent turnout in that referendum, with 294 voters, and 76 percent of them voted in support of the ownership of the scheme being transferred to the Otama Rural Water Supply company.

Certainly, water belongs to all of us, and we all have a responsibility for its management. This scheme, when it was built in the 1970s in the heart of prime dairy farming country around Gore, was all about providing water to the community—some 253 connections, 210 farms, two schools, and one marae. It was built to provide a source of water for stock, but over the years it has also become really important in providing potable drinking-water.

Everyone wants safe, healthy, secure water, and that’s why Supplementary Order Paper 206, which my colleague Marama Davidson put and which was adopted by this House, is to ensure that when the scheme is transferred there is an assessment of the ability of the company to meet regulatory requirements. It’s those regulatory requirements in terms of the work that this Government is doing in response to the Havelock North drinking-water disaster to ensure that everybody’s right to safe water is safeguarded. That is a useful addition to the bill, and I was pleased to hear Mr Hudson endorsing that, given that Ms Jacqui Dean was opposing the inclusion of the ability to meet those regulatory requirements around safe drinking-water, which I found quite odd.

So this bill does specify the process by which the assets belonging to, at the moment, the council should be transferred to the Otama Rural Water Supply company, and, as others have mentioned, there are a number of safeguards in that. There’s the one about having another referendum. The first referendum showed that there was overwhelming support for this. That needs to be confirmed in a subsequent referendum, and I think it’s interesting, because the scheme was established with the help of a loan from the Southland County Council and with a subsidy from central government. But, of course, there was a substantial contribution of time, energy, and skill from the local community. The loan was eventually repaid, but I think the community also understands that maintaining an effective and healthy water-supply comes with significant costs.

The recent decision to install chlorination has some quite significant costs of over $30,000, and I noticed in media coverage that because the scheme draws its water from a bore from the Mataura River and then the pipeline takes the water from the bore across the river—and that pipeline was on the Pyramid Bridge, when that bridge collapsed last year—the community was looking to Environment Southland to contribute to the costs of restoration of the pipeline. So this transfer that’s proposed will involve costs in maintaining an effective water-supply system, but the community is prepared to take that on, because they’ve already been investing quite a lot of effort in that, and the bill is needed because, of course, the Local Government Act makes it very clear that you cannot transfer the ownership of water schemes without an Act of Parliament if that scheme is supplying more than 200 users.

That’s an important threshold in the Act, because it does ensure that management of our water supplies remains the domain of councils on behalf of the wider community and that they are subject to regulatory requirements to ensure that the drinking water is safe, and that’s why the work that Minister Mahuta is leading around the three waters and the work that Mr Clark is involved with around improving the standards for drinking water and responding to the Havelock North crisis is so significant. This Government is committed to ensuring that we have really good management of storm water, of waste water, and of drinking water so that everyone can be assured of having healthy water to drink.

This is a small bill, but I commend the Governance and Administration Committee for the fact that they visited Gore. They heard members of the community speaking directly to them about the history of the scheme and about their desire for it to be transferred and the ownership settled. I commend the sponsor of the bill, Mark Patterson, for the work that he has done in channelling this bill through the House. It is a rare privilege for an MP to be responsible for a bill that does become law. So congratulations, Mr Patterson. I think the bill will respond to that very strong demand that was there in the submissions, in the hearings to the select committee, and in the media coverage about the bill for the community actually taking full ownership of it, given that they have been so active in actually building the scheme and maintaining it for several decades.

The bill, by just listing and setting out the process by which the transfer should happen, makes sure that there is certainty and clarity around that after there has been another referendum. So it is a good bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and it’s my privilege to stand in support of this bill, the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. What it does is it transfer the assets from the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Ltd.

I would like to start by acknowledging Mark Patterson, as everyone else has done, for sponsoring this bill. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge him for the way he has shared this whole history of the scheme, how it has started and how the farmers got together to build this asset, which is very important for the people living in that area. As was mentioned, it is connected to the farmlands in that area as well as the houses, the marae, and the school. They all benefit from this scheme. I would also like to acknowledge Hamish Walker, the local MP from Clutha-Southland, who also participated in this whole process. He came to the Governance and Administration Committee as well as to the hearings in the Gore District, and his contribution is also really well appreciated.

As we know, water is going to be very precious and we have to take care that we use water in a manner that our future generations can use water in times to come. If we look at some areas of the world where there are droughts, water is very precious to them, and we have an abundance of water. As the previous speaker, the Hon Eugenie Sage mentioned, this Government is looking into announcing a policy about the three waters. That is also a very important part, and I think that will show the right path to New Zealand for how we are going to utilise all three waters and treat them.

In this scheme, in the early 1970s, following meetings of farmers, the community considered that supply and recirculation of the water on farms should be a great assistance to stock management and health. The costs of the scheme were met by contributions in cash and labour from the users of the scheme and subsidies from the central government and a loan raised by the Southland County Council. It was a big ask in those days, because we know that sometimes providing cash is tough, but there were people who were ready to provide the labour to ensure the scheme was implemented. The scheme is governed by the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, which comprises eight users appointed by the users of the scheme as well as a councillor elected for the ward.

The scheme is still primarily used for stock but also services an estimated 223 dwellings that are likely to use the water for drinking purposes. The water is untreated but is chlorinated. We know that there was issue in Havelock North. After that, the decision was made that this water, which can’t be treated right now, be chlorinated so that it is safe for drinking. For over 120 years this process has been used, and I think that is the wisest thing which could be done.

According to the current situation, we know the ownership of the scheme has historically been unclear, but the council considered it currently has a legal responsibility for the scheme. The committee has governed the operation of the scheme on behalf of the users from the establishment of this asset. Day-to-day operation and maintenance are done by the council—and that is very important because the maintenance work is quite important for any asset—and technical advice and reporting to the committee. The maintenance and operation cost of the scheme is met by the committee. The fees are collected from the users, and they are responsible for paying all the bills.

Following the meeting in May 2017, a referendum was held, and the users of the scheme overwhelmingly voted that the ownership of the scheme to be transferred from the council to the committee. There was a 75 percent turnout of the users, and, out of those 75 percent, 76 percent of the people supported the motion that this should happen. As the result of the referendum, the council confirmed that it supports the users of the scheme taking over the ownership in future.

As part of the transfer process set out in the draft bill, the council and the community are currently developing a water safety plan and undertaking a catchment risk assessment, which found that there is a potential risk to the water supply. Currently, there is no issue with the water itself. However, in the light of the findings of the Havelock North inquiry, the council has decided that a permanent boil-water notice be issued for the scheme, and the people who live in that area are required to boil the water before it is to be consumed.

The users would like the scheme to be transferred to them so that they can ensure that the scheme continues to meet the needs and remains cost-effective.

In the select committee process, we received 26 submissions, out of which 14 submitters wanted to be heard orally, and those hearings were held in Wellington as well as in Gore. I missed out on going to Gore because of other commitments, but I have heard from many of the members who went there. Paul Eagle was one of them. He mentioned that there was great hospitality extended to the committee by the local people over there, and I hope that at some time, the next time when I am there, the local MP will take me along and extend this hospitality again.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Cheese rolls.

The cheese rolls—exactly, Mr David Carter.

💬 Maureen Pugh: Oysters.

I know that Maureen Pugh is looking for the next slot to speak and contribute, and I had her hospitality in Hokitika a couple of years ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

As I was mentioning, the select committee process was quite comprehensive. I would like to acknowledge Brett Hudson, the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, for his leadership and for ensuring that a fair go was given to all the members of the public who were present there.

Lastly, before I conclude, I would like to say that it is important that assets that have been built with the support of the public and that are maintained for more than almost 50 years should be given an opportunity that they can be kept in the right position so that they can be used for the future generations. With these words, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

I understand this is a split call. Jamie Strange, you have five minutes.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I was a member of the select committee who actually travelled to Gore and heard submissions, and I’d just like to highlight that aspect of our parliamentary process. It is the fact that we have a select committee here in Parliament, the Governance and Administration Committee, and we knew that there were around 18 to 20 people from Gore who wanted to submit. So we had a decision: we could stay here and they could make their way up to Wellington—and it would have been quite an expense for many of them—or we could go to Gore. I’d like to highlight the leadership of our chair, Brett Hudson, who stated quite strongly that “We need to go to Gore. This is an important issue and we need to head down there to listen.”, and so we did.

We heard the submissions, and they were certainly quite compelling. We also shared in the hospitality, which I know has been mentioned, and I’d like to just also highlight that because I know there’ll be many people from Gore watching at the moment.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: “Gorre”.

“Gorre”—yes. The water is probably the nicest water I have ever tasted in my life. The water was absolutely pristine, almost as good as Hamilton’s water—almost as good.

💬 Paul Eagle: Chlorination.

Yeah. Now, many of the aspects of this bill have been laid out by previous speakers, so I won’t really touch on that, but, just to summarise, really, the builders and owners of the scheme thought they owned it. However, it had transferred to council use, unbeknown to them. Then they found out about the transfer, and so they asked us to have it transferred back. The arguments for that were clearly laid out in the submissions, and we’ve heard them tonight. This is a piece of common-sense legislation, and I commend this to the House. Thank you.

I call Maureen Pugh—five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s, again, my pleasure to stand in support of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. Although I haven’t been involved with the select committee that has been considering this bill, I think probably because of my connection with council over time, they saw me as a valuable contributor to the discussion—I hope so, anyway. As we’ve heard today from many of the speakers, this is a very non-contentious bill. It simply seeks to determine a pathway forward for the Gore District Council to transfer the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme—including all of its assets—to those who have built it, who have paid for all of those assets and who have paid for all of the maintenance, right from the beginning of the scheme and through to any replacements and upgrades that have happened over the years. Of course, those people, who are users of and payers for this scheme, the Otama Rural Water Ltd company—as it is formed now—will take receipt of the assets from this water scheme.

So, simply to outline a little bit of history about this scheme, we need to go back about 50 years, to when this particular scheme was set up. As we heard before, back in the 1970s, when there was a need, the local community simply got themselves together, they got some local labour, they got some cash between themselves, they got a grant and a subsidy, and, together, they pulled this scheme together. But back in those days, as we probably all remember—well, maybe some of the people in this House won’t remember—

💬 Simeon Brown: Winston remembers well.

Winston Peters certainly would remember. But back in those days, things weren’t as tight as we needed them to be about who would actually own the assets, because back in those days, they simply didn’t care. All they wanted to know was that when they turned the tap on, they would get water. But as time moves on, as we all know, rules change. There are risks and responsibilities that need to be owned, and so here we are today.

So I commend the community on the Otama Rural Water Supply for getting this process through the system, and I imagine that some of them are at home now, wondering why it has taken over nine months for it to work its way through the system. The parliamentary machine probably does look a little bit tardy, but, simply, there is no opposition to this bill, and, unbeknown to them, it could take an awful lot longer—as some bills have had to—to work its way through this House. But the end is in sight for the community, and today we will see this legislation in place and see the assets transferred to Otama Rural Water Ltd.

I would just like to make a note about local bills. I’m a very firm supporter of them as a mechanism for working through local issues, and I certainly look forward to more of them coming into the House.

As we heard today, the Gore District Council has maintained these assets and taken care of the day-to-day operations of this particular scheme, but the governance of the scheme has sat with the community, the user group. So when it came time to sort it all out, my good friend and former colleague Mayor Tracy Hicks and his councillors at the Gore District Council pulled together this process that we’re working through and finalising today, and they consulted with their community, as is required by the Local Government Act 2002. But the reason that we have this bill in front of us is because, under the Local Government Act, a council can only divest a water scheme if there are fewer than 200 users on that scheme and, of course, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme has more than 200 users. So that is why it has required this special legislation: to support the transfer back to the community.

One thing I would like to note about this particular local bill is that we are talking not about the water but about the reticulation assets. I also note the comment from my colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi, who talked about the permanent boil-water notice. For some city folk, that may seem quite an onerous task, but for us that live in the rural areas, we don’t bother boiling the water; that’s just real water to us. I commend this bill to the House.

If you would just give us a moment, gentlemen, we’re just trying to sort out if this is a split call. It isn’t normally, with a local bill. Just bear with us for a second. We might need to put some leave for that to occur, just a second—just hold your horses. Can I just check with the Labour member whether he would be prepared to split the call with the ACT member?

💬 Paul Eagle: Yep.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): OK. David Seymour—five minutes.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party. Paul Eagle needn’t wait long to get his speaking time.

This is a very good bill; it’s gone through a very robust process. I commend the member in charge, Mark Patterson, for the work that he’s done, and others who have apparently shared cheese rolls and travelled to Gore and done all of those wonderful things.

There have already been a number of speeches that I feel were needlessly long. I can only guess or hazard that perhaps those members had only recently learnt to talk and were revelling in their new-found ability or needed practice at that. So I decided that rather than following them and doing exactly the same thing, I’d say about as much as them and communicate about as much information as they did in about the same period of time but minus eight or nine minutes. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Well, look, that was worth waiting the extra few minutes to stand. Can I just say there have been a lot of comments about cheese rolls, so I don’t want to hold things up, because it is dinner time in 50 minutes, so let’s get on with it.

Can I just acknowledge that extra hard-working select committee: the Governance and Administration Committee. There’s a waiting list to get on it, I hear. Once again, it does these sorts of fantastic bills. The local bill is the life’s work of Mr Mark Patterson MP, and, if this is all he’s done in his 35 years here, then he’s done a great job.

The Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill is really about ownership and water quality. These guys convinced us, after travelling seven days and seven nights to get there, we finally got there ship and all, pōwhiri out on the beach, and we get up to Gore, and what do you know? Tom Affleck greets us with quite a stunning array of his pals who convince us that “Look, we’ve been here since 1972. We’ve done the mahi, we know how to do it, and we want to do it.”—much to my horror. I thought “Jeepers, they’d want to make a quick exit from owning and managing their own water.”—but look, fantastic.

I know some of my colleagues didn’t know where Gore was, but they do now. They do now know that they’ll have a water scheme that they’ll own and manage, and so they deserve it. Good luck to them. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. Now, first of all, I would like to acknowledge Mark Patterson, the sponsor of the bill, and also would like to acknowledge my colleague the local MP Hamish Walker, who went down to Gore along with some Governance and Administration Committee members to hear oral submissions in Gore.

As I said before, this bill is actually a quite straightforward bill and the case is quite straightforward. Basically, a water scheme was built in the 1970s, the contributors were largely the farmers who used the scheme, and then a committee was set up. The committee members are overwhelmingly representatives of the farmers who use the scheme, plus a local councillor. While the council is involved in the management of the scheme, the committee or the users have actually covered the costs of the maintenance of the scheme. So historically it has not been very clear about the ownership of the scheme, and people were not particularly concerned about this. However, it is understood that the council now has the legal responsibility for the scheme. Then, in May 2017, there was a public meeting regarding ownership, and after the meeting there was a preliminary referendum in which 75 percent of the voters voted and then, among those who voted, about 75 percent voted for the ownership of the scheme to be transferred from the council to the committee. So that was a bit of history.

It is clear that this has always been a community effort. It sounds very reasonable that the ownership of the scheme should be returned to the community. So the users would like the scheme to be returned to them so that they can ensure that the scheme continues to meet their needs and to be cost-effective. I believe this is largely about returning the scheme or rewarding a community effort, because the scheme itself has always been regarded as a community effort, and, for that reason, the scheme should be returned to the community. Now, because of the preliminary referendum, the council decided there should be a return to the committee and to the users, and this bill will simply facilitate that transfer. We believe this is a practical and fair solution.

Well, this is not really a major bill or a huge bill. It is not a very significant economic asset, because those who are affected by the bill or by this transfer, or those who may benefit from the transfer, are those farmers who use the scheme; so not a very large number.

Nevertheless, we believe that this is still a very important bill, so the members of the Governance and Administration Committee went down to Gore to listen to the submitters. I think that was a very special effort made by the committee. Of course, it’s not very often that members of Parliament would travel down to that part of New Zealand to hear the oral submissions—but we did. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the submitters and particularly the leader of the scheme or the committee, Mr Tom Affleck. Mr Tom Affleck was elected to the committee, actually, in 1972, and there he became the secretary of the committee in 1978 and stayed until 1993, and then he became the chair of the committee in 1993. So he has served on the committee for a long time. So I thank him for his effort, and I thank all the submitters for their efforts. The submissions were very well-organised and the message was very, very clear.

After the hearing, along with a couple of other members, we went to visit the site. It was very impressive because to stand on top of the hill we could see a very beautiful piece of land—a very green land—and, of course, water is particularly important to the land and therefore to the farms.

But this bill itself is not particularly about water. It’s actually about water infrastructure—about some pipes and concrete. So this bill itself would actually enable the committee or local people or the users of the scheme to own the water infrastructure. So it’s not about water itself.

Now, this bill also makes clear the steps to ensure a very smooth transfer and sustainable management of the scheme. It specifies the process for obtaining the authorisation to transfer the scheme. Now, first of all, there should be a referendum, and, if over 50 percent of the legal voters vote for the scheme to be transferred from the council to the new company—well, the shareholders will be the farmers who use the scheme—then the council will start the process.

Well, of course there are some very specific requirements there around how to transfer the scheme from the council to the new company. First, the referendum—and the referendum must be done within five years on which this scheme was supposed to be transferred.

Now, before the referendum, the council needs to make some documents publicly available, and that is also important because the voters will need time to read, to digest, and then to make decisions. It’s important to make the process transparent—so such documents like the views of the medical officer of health, the transfer plan, and the proposed agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of the company and any contractors, including the council, in relation to the scheme as prepared by the company. So this would, as I said, enable voters to have time to read those documents and then make informed decisions.

The bill also specifies requirements for the plans and assessments. For instance, the transfer plan needs to have five specific elements. So that’s also listed—those five elements are listed in the particular bill. Also, the company must prepare analysis of the types of contractual arrangements that the company will need to enter into with the council and other parties to obtain goods and services in relation to the maintenance and operation of the scheme, because you do need to have a plan there to make sure that once that scheme is transferred to a new company, a new company will be able to maintain the quality of the scheme—make sure that it’s sustainable.

The company must also assess the likely future capital and operating costs of the company to maintain and operate a scheme for a period of 30 years. So, again, the company is required to have a long-term plan in terms of maintaining and operating the scheme once they have ownership of the scheme. So all these documents will be accessible to the voters and will make sure that once the transfer is done, this scheme will continue to operate in a sustainable way and cost-effectual way.

Now, the bill also defines who will be the eligible voters. Of course, the residents in the area and the farmers who use the scheme will be legal voters. All these are clearly defined. So, to conclude, I will say this is a local bill. This is a bill which returns to the community what they deserve. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m the last speaker on this bill. I won’t be repeating what everyone else has said, but I would like to say well done, “Patto”—Mark Patterson, the member who has brought this local bill. Local bills are important, and I just want to really make the point that local solutions to local problems can occur within a wider framework and not be caught up and lost because of larger issues facing the nation. I think this is a really good example of an agile approach to governing and demonstrates trust in local decision-making, and I say that because it’s a small water scheme—small but important.

I’d also like to say that everyone in this House should know where Gore is, and, if they don’t, they should visit, because it’s one of the jewels in the crown of Southland. This is a scheme with local control through local users. As we’ve heard, the water comes—I’m sure people have said this—from a bore next to the Mataura River, at the site of the former Pyramid Bridge, and it supplies about 253 homes, 210 farms, two schools, and a marae.

So the crucial thing about that is, as part of the transfer process that this bill enables, the council and the committee have been developing a water safety plan. That is important—and this is where I go to the wider framework. Safe, clean water is a birthright for every New Zealander, and this Government takes that incredibly seriously no matter where people live and the communities that they come from. The context that sits behind this is a major piece of work that’s being undertaken at the moment because of that Havelock North campylobacter outbreak in 2016, when 5,500 people became ill, which resulted in the deaths of at least four people.

The final thing to say is that the subsequent inquiry recommended a dedicated water regulator, and the Minister in charge of it, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has been working on a very, very important piece of work that is about to go to Cabinet which is about how our three waters framework is handled in New Zealand. This local bill—no matter how small it is or how small that community is, it’s critical that the water is managed properly, and I think that this bill demonstrates that there can be a trust in local community and how local community can handle this. I commend it to the House.

Bill read a third time.