Little Andrew: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. It was very good of the member who just spoke Nikki Kaye to say that she is going to be in Wanganui or Whanganui on Monday with Chester Borrows. She will be about an hour and a half’s drive away from the area that will be affected by this bill so she has got a little more work to do if she wants to get an understanding of just how people in that area feel about this bill. There is not a unanimous view that this is necessarily a good thing. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That supports it or opposes it? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Let me be very clear: the Labour Party will support this bill. That is the position that is being taken. But because Dr Nick Smith thinks in very simple terms he cannot understand that there might be you know gradations of support and there might be other concerns that are equally relevant. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Shades of grey in his case. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Shades of grey in his case yes—you are not 50 yet not  
Fifty Shades of Grey 
 hopefully. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Spare the thought. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Exactly. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Keep it seemly. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: That is right. No no we like to keep our cultural references current and to the point—no pun intended. But here is the thing: the Labour Party will support this bill but that is not a reason not to register the sorts of concerns that my colleagues—Grant Robertson in particular—have already noted. 
Let us be very clear: the farming communities in all parts of Taranaki including South Taranaki are absolutely vital to the region and are a good bunch of people. That is why the Labour Party in Taranaki enjoys a very good close relationship with the local branch of Federated Farmers. We have good dialogue we meet regularly and we have good discussions. But there are concerns about measures like this and those concerns should be put on the record. 
Let us go to the origins of this particular water scheme. It was funded by a 50 percent or a dollar for dollar grant by central government when it was put in place in the mid-1980s. That grant made its way through what was then the Egmont County Council which had responsibility for that area. I do not know why it later became the South Taranaki District Council or the “STD Council” as it is known locally which is a most unfortunate name. But I promised I would get off  
Fifty Shades of Grey. 
 The scheme had a 50 percent subsidy from central government. That subsidy was paid on the basis that the scheme would demonstrate a greater than usual marginal benefit for the subscribers to or the users of the scheme. Indeed that has been the case. 
Of the submissions that went to the Local Government and Environment Committee there were some very good ones that showed the actual impact of the scheme. Those local farmers who were originally part of the scheme and those who have come into it through succession or acquisition of farms have enjoyed not just the benefit of the mere existence of the scheme but also the added value that it has created and that is a good thing. It is a wise use and a sensible use of taxpayer money and a partnership relationship between the Government and communities such as this. 
There were two other sources of value that have made up the scheme. One is the sweat equity and hard labours of the farmer subscribers to the scheme who at the time of its construction used their plant and machinery amongst other things to assist in its construction and development. Also the local district council now the South Taranaki District Council provided its engineering expertise as part of the maintenance of the scheme. In particular in terms of the head works and the pump-house it has provided some maintenance and engineering expertise to support that and be part of its upkeep. So it is not true to say that it is just the hard labours of the local farmers who are the beneficiaries of the scheme at the moment. 
That is why I think it is important that we take time and we pause to reflect on exactly who has contributed and where that value might be properly reflected. It is for that reason too that it is good to see that as part of the referendum process and the change that has been suffered as a result of the select committee process it is not just a simple referendum but a referendum that requires all of the relevant information to be put before the electors—those who will be able to take part in the vote. 
Let us be clear about why some of the farmer members who have made submissions to the select committee want this transfer to go ahead. They have been very clear. One submission was from a farming couple. They say they have got a farm near Te Kiri with two dairy farms and a drystock unit and they receive their water from the Cold Creek system. This came from a second-term councillor on the South Taranaki District Council who had declared his conflict of interest. He said that one of the attractions of the scheme when it was built was the one-to-one Government subsidy on the basis that it would be able to generate a designated economic gain from production increases. Those submitters went on to say that the reason they wanted the divestment now is that they did not want the scheme to be caught up in potential negotiations over iwi settlements. 
Another farmer with the surname Ardern—not the chairperson of the scheme and not the member but a different Ardern again—said he supported it because as he described it “It puts ownership of the scheme infra structure where it rightfully belongs. Local ownership and management …”. There is no acknowledgment of the public contributions to the scheme just that the locals should have ownership of it. 
Another submitter Anna Dodunski said that “… local ownership brings with it a quicker response time” and that “local ownership of Cold Creek Water Supply is fundamental as only the residents on the scheme have invested interest in protecting the waterway and ultimately the future of the river which is cold creek.” That is a farmer sentiment but it is not all entirely correct. 
One of the main iwi who submitted on the bill of course noted that they had not been consulted on it. One of the other changes that the select committee process created was that there will now be proper consultation with local iwi—and not just one iwi of course but all local iwi. They will all now be consulted on it and they will have a chance to have a say. 
None of that was in the original bill and none of that went before the South Taranaki District Council when it was being asked by Chester Borrows Shane Ardern and Shane Ardern’s brother to support the bill. Those changes have been made. It is important that those changes were made and it is good that they have been. For those reasons in spite of the reservations we had originally Labour will support the bill.