Williams Andrew: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 March 2012. Volume:678;Page:1190. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. New Zealand First is prepared to recommend that this bill goes to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration but we do equally have some concerns about some aspects of this bill. Water is a basic human right and here in New Zealand it is something that we all know is abundant but on the other hand it is a precious resource and something that we must all be very mindful of taking good care of. In this respect it is very very clear that over many many years the people in this district have tried to provide for themselves with a subsidised scheme through the Government and their own means and through the former Egmont County Council to provide this reticulated water scheme to service the farming community but also something like 540 consumers as well as two marae in the area. 
However I echo the comments of some of the other members earlier in this debate. There are some concerns about perhaps some of the ways that this bill got to this House today. When I look at some of the literature that has been placed before me—which refers to such things as the battle for Cold Creek water going back several years how this has been somewhat controversial in the local community the pros and cons of leaving it with the South Taranaki District Council or moving it into the private company the Cold Creek Community Water Supply—there certainly are some issues around perhaps the methodology by which it has got to this point today. 
I am equally concerned that the minutes of the South Taranaki District Council meeting of Monday 15 August 2011 do refer to some discussions with the mayor and council there and the executive of the South Taranaki District Council which in a sense indicated that if they were not happy to go along with this and divest of this water reticulation scheme to this company then steps would be made to have it put through Parliament anyway. I equally am a little bit aghast to see comments like that in the minutes of a local authority. I was witness to bovver boy tactics myself as the mayor of the fourth-largest city in this country where similar stand-over tactics were taken to muscle us out of local government in Auckland. It is very concerning to see similar tactics in a sense being used to basically put the pressure on and say: “If you don’t comply with us the local authority then we will simply ride roughshod over you and do it anyway.” That is a worry in this country. I have witnessed it only too many times from my own local government perspective and it is a worry in this country if that is the way central government is going to work with local government. 
We have seen this week again that local government is being chopped off at the knees by the Minister of Local Government—or as of today the former Minister of Local Government. We all have concerns about the cost to local government of infrastructure for our communities for the provision of amenities and services. However I think as I said in my speech on the previous bill regarding Stewart Island central government must work with local government for the betterment of this country. I certainly do not appreciate seeing situations arising where representatives of this House could be construed as providing pressure on local government to comply or be walked over. 
So we will support this bill going through to the select committee for consideration but we will be asking some of those very same questions to ensure that this measure is in the best public interest that public funds are being well utilised in terms of how this is divested and moved across to the private company scheme and that if any public money has gone into the scheme over the years it should be repaid to the source it came from rather than this particular private company or company as it stands getting a benefit from public funds. So we will support this bill’s referral to the select committee but we do raise some alarm bells around some of the issues.