Borrows Chester: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Borrows Chester: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7171. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a second time 
. It has been my privilege as the member of Parliament for Whanganui to sponsor this bill a local bill from the South Taranaki District Council to vest with Cold Creek Community Water Supply the water-race scheme that the members of that community built for themselves back in the mid-1980s according to an incentive scheme that was provided by the Government in those times as a dollar for dollar subsidy building water-race schemes with the proviso that they increase productivity. The local farmers got together and put together a water-race scheme built on the Cold Creek water catchment and built that scheme and so lifted the productivity of farms in that area but provided fresh and clean water for the consumers both animal and human within that catchment. 
I want to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who have considered this bill. I want to acknowledge the chairmanship of Nicky Wagner and all the parties who conducted themselves really well and in a good debating sort of a manner over the course of the consideration of the bill. I recognise that the bill has—and I am grateful for—the support of the bulk of the Parliament. The Labour Party New Zealand First United Future ACT and the National Party have indicated support for the bill. Those dissenting have been the Green Party the Maori Party and the Mana party. I want to acknowledge too that the dissenting votes that they will cast are really based on philosophy. The fact is that in respect of the Maori Party for instance the Maori Party members have consulted with local iwi as to which way they would want them to vote in respect of this matter. Iwi have asked that they not vote for it. Iwi have said that they do not see themselves in respect of local tangata whenua to be in a position where they would be consulted by the district council on this. They are upset as they do not feel that they have been consulted in the way that they should have but see themselves as Treaty partners and so should be exercising some governance over the allocation of water at regional council level or at central government level. 
In respect of the Green Party the Green Party has said that it believes that the water-race scheme should be retained within community ownership. It has been my contention to their member responsible for this bill Eugenie Sage that in fact this is the lowest level of community ownership that you can have. It is owned by the people who built the scheme. It is owned by the people who use the scheme. In the end we end up in a situation where the Green Party believes it should really be held by the territorial local authority. I suggested to Eugenie a little tongue-in-cheek that if it was a kibbutz she would vote for it. She said: “Yeah but it’s not a kibbutz.” I actually said that it is a collection of farmers working together for the common good using a natural resource which is pretty much a kibbutz in my language. However I do not profess to be an authority on that. As far as the honourable member Hone Harawira goes I think he would just be against it because he is against most things but there we go. 
I wanted to acknowledge the philosophical differences. In any event I believe that the Local Government and Environment Committee worked in good spirits across parties to be able to ensure that the transition of the bill went smoothly and all issues were raised. 
Consultation as I have indicated was an issue for iwi. The council felt that it had consulted with iwi. It has an iwi liaison group representative of local iwi and in raising it time after time over many years and also giving the issue publicity through the newspaper and running the community notification the council felt that it had consulted. It had consulted with iwi by going through its iwi liaison committee with as I say all iwi represented. Iwi felt that they should have been consulted and approached iwi by iwi. To try to give some rectification to that Cold Creek Community Water Supply actually held a hui at the Tariki hall. I was present and chaired the meeting. We did have a discussion with iwi about this. They ended up at a place where they did not see that they could instruct the Maori Party that they were happy or comfortable for them to be able to vote in that way. 
Then to cover off who should own a water scheme as I said the origin of this scheme was that it was a dollar for dollar subsidy—dollar for dollar with the taxpayers and the local farmers. No ratepayer money went into it. How the South Taranaki District Council got to be the owners of this scheme was really that at the time a number of the farmers who were part of the construction of this scheme were on the Egmont County Council. They saw that as a viable place for the Government to put its money so it would be used according to the scheme. The Government required somebody—you know with hindsight they could have used the local iwi or they could have used Kiwi Cooperative Dairies at the time which went on to become Fonterra but because they had members on that council they decided they would vest it with that council. Then with local government amalgamation in 1989 it came into the South Taranaki District Council list of assets. 
 I have said who has paid for it. They were the farmers and the taxpayers of New Zealand. The taxpayers’ investment was to be based on productivity gained by the implementation of the scheme and the taxpayers have had their dollars back many many times over. So since the mid to late 1990s the Cold Creek water-race scheme members have been administering the scheme and acting as the owners of the scheme. Members of Parliament may well say well why change that? If it is being run by them now they are keeping the profits of it these are put back into the scheme and it is costing the council nothing why is it so important for those people to be able to have their names on the title or to own the scheme? 
The reason is simple and it is totally around the human condition and that is that at the time this was built rates for borrowing money were exorbitant. Those of us who were trying to buy houses or farms or whatever in those days will remember those days when the interest rate was 18 percent per annum and the penalty rates were 22 percent and 24 percent. Struggling young farmers who were doing their best to build up a business like the honourable member Shane Ardern and his brother were borrowing money on those rates and yet they had to put in I believe $67000 in respect of their farm to build this water-race scheme. 
So having gone through that process and having sweated blood for a scheme that many other people are benefiting from right now they want to own it. I can see that as being a perfectly reasonable place for them to be in bearing in mind that there is no real right of ownership on the constituency of the South Taranaki District Council. 
There were questions around health issues because a clause of the bill had given the South Taranaki District Council an indemnity in respect of public health issues and the Ministry of Health made it quite plain that they cannot opt out of that. They cannot be given an enduring indemnity in respect of public health issues because they will continue in the way that they do for other district councils over the catchment of the whole of their constituency. The fact is though that they will not bear a responsibility for matters that rest with the Cold Creek company: the provision of clean water access to water and those sorts of things. 
The council will have the responsibility to make sure that there is monitoring in respect of the quality of that water and if they are found wanting they will lead the prosecution in respect of that. If someone sets up a business drawing water from Cold Creek and they were requiring public health notifications and monitoring these would still rest with the council albeit the day-to-day responsibility of providing clean and potable water through the scheme still stays with the owners of the scheme. 
I want to finish off now just by thanking again members on the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work that they did and congratulating the members of the Cold Creek water-race scheme company on the work that they have done over about 12 or 13 years now to reach this time. They are very pleased to know that within the next few members’ days they will have vested back with them this asset that they worked bloody hard to achieve for their community. Thank you.