Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just reflect on what the previous speaker David Seymour has just said. I am working on an amendment through a friend of mine right at the moment. I'd just like to acknowledge actually Mr Tirikatene and his kind words and Mr Seymour's kind words and just respond. Although I have something new I want to say I just want to respond to what Mr Patterson said.This is not any form of game playing. It is simply a reflection of what I learnt and took from spending time in Gore and listening to what the people who are scheme users said about what it meant to them and to a degree some long-held anger that they feel that they would be wrongly dispossessed of what they felt was always theirs. So there is no game playing behind this. And if I can before this part expires get a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to the Table I will absolutely do so.The reason for a second call was actually about clause 4 the interpretation and it is another question I have for the member in the chair under scheme assets". I think it is absolutely important—critical in fact—that we get this right. In this element of that clause it lists down what I imagine is an attempt to identify every piece of asset in the scheme as hopefully it exists today. I look through that list and I can't possibly know if it's 100 percent accurate or complete nor would anyone expect me to. But that raises the very question: if this bill should pass its third reading and subsequently become law and we have not included—Hon Jacqui Dean: It's an option.BRETT HUDSON: It's an option—well all parties are agreeing with it so far—then that interpretation will fundamentally define what the assets of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme are. If in passing this we get that wrong we could actually cause some real problems to scheme users and in fact actually to the district council. Whether we see it as a transfer of assets or a return of assets we're still absolutely shifting the ownership of those assets to a new body—a body that is not part of the district council and is not subject to a levy on the wider ratepayers of the district. If we get the assets wrong we actually risk a situation where some of the physical infrastructure which is understood and has always been part of the delivery of water to scheme users could inadvertently be left out and therefore not fall under the ownership of that through the new company. If that is the case then it would remain the responsibility of the Gore District Council to maintain and upgrade whatever that asset component is.It could be something really quite small in the scheme of its size and individual value but if it is integral to deliver the scheme to one or more of the users then we could actually inadvertently upset the whole purpose of the bill by actually not transferring what is simply—because by assets we're transferring the responsibility of the delivery of that water through those assets. So we could actually create a problem where they don't own it all and where the council remains obligated—through expenditure and rates from local district ratepayers who are otherwise to be absolved of any responsibility for the scheme—to maintain and upgrade one or more elements of it no matter how small and in some ways seemingly insignificant they may be.Beyond that though if that turned out to be the case then we could actually have introduced what is a really serious operational management problem. If one or more assets that are not captured in here are now part of what amounts to a system of delivering water to the scheme users then if the responsibility and obligation of some part of it remains on the council they could actually—again not necessarily deliberately—through the application of their own management and processes prevent or place further obligations on the scheme company that they might not choose to do so themselves.For instance the scheme through the company may choose to want to upgrade a part of it. If it transpires in the process of doing that work that they discover that some elements of the system in that area have actually not been transferred and therefore remain under the control and ownership of the Gore District Council then their own processes and operational processes will play a part in that and may actually prevent the scheme company from undertaking the work on what it understands to be its assets. That would mean that we had failed. In the real world in the real use of the scheme and delivery of water to its owners its users we would have failed in what we are seeking to do here.My view is that we can again put a small clause or small words in here to alleviate that risk or to mitigate that risk. We could have for instance in a new clause 4(b)(xii) words that said "and any other physical components of the current Otama Rural Water Supply scheme not listed above". We could simply have blanket words that said that we have a scheme that delivers water to the Ōtama rural community—the scheme users—and it is wholly separate on its own. It doesn't rely on elements of the reticulated water or water systems of the Gore District Council; it is its own scheme. Some might call it "belts and braces"; I wouldn't. But it would simply mean that we'd have a small catch-all that would mean that we won't inadvertently neglect to include some elements of the system that delivers that water to scheme users such that in the future it might otherwise be discovered through a slip-up through a small error or through the missing of a component or components that we had failed to actually achieve the true and full purpose of this bill.I'd ask the Minister—well one day maybe but I'll ask the member in the chair to reflect on that again in good faith. I'm not seeking to slow the passage of the bill here. I'm not seeking to make it unwieldy or in any way compromise any party who has an interest and support in this bill. I am simply offering a small suggestion that if we were to take it up could ensure that we don't inadvertently undermine the purpose of this legislation with our intent but also obviously from the perspective of the scheme users. I would ask Mr Patterson to reflect on that and perhaps agree to it. We could very rapidly put an SOP in to do this—working together across the Chamber as in fact the support for this bill has shown to be. So Mr Patterson please reflect on that if you will and respond."