Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): 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."