Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): 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."