Leary Ingrid; Russell DeborahINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to raise a completely new point on behalf of people in my electorate in Taieri where we have a lot of rural areas and we have mixed rural and urban water supplies. This was something that the select committee under the Water Services Legislation Act looked at very closely and had a lot of input from—I'd like to thank the local councils for their input.This goes to a couple of questions that I had for the Minister of Local Government. First of all what kind of level of drinking-water standards would he expect in relation to those water supplies given that their primary purpose is not drinking water? Usually the primary purpose is actually about facilitating the farms—and it goes through multiple farms—which also raises the second question about ownership and the role of the combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Where does the Minister see those mixed rural supplies being controlled and managed? Under this legislation we reached a point where we acknowledged the investment that private owners had made—private farmers in particular had made—into these mixed-use supplies over many decades. There was a facility to be able to actually get ownership back to private ownership if a number of conditions were met: if 75 percent of the shareholders of that mixed urban-rural supply—and they were sort of deemed shareholders—were able to agree on it.Now under the repeal I guess that leaves many of my constituents wondering: what does it mean for the investment that they've put into those mixed-use schemes? Are they going to be carved out and not be part of this alleged balance sheet separation exercise or will they become part of CSOs; in which case if they do how does that ownership vest in the CSOs? Is there a facility for private owners to be able to have management or control again of those mixed supplies?There's another question as well really in all of that which is that many councils have actually invested into these as well. So how are ratepayers who have invested into these schemes also acknowledged for their investment and input?These are really really important questions in the Clutha area and also because many of the farmers may not always use the water for drinking water but when they do they don't want to be held necessarily to the same standards as an urban water supply. So has the Minister turned his mind to a difference perhaps between urban and rural; and what kind of standards will be required? Then secondly I'd really like to just get his response to those questions around the ownership and some assurance for farmers—and I'm sure in other parts of New Zealand—who have invested for decades through their families into these schemes. How is he going to deal with that given that the schemes don't just belong to one particular family? Often it's to communities and often as I've said councils have invested into them as well.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I was listening to Morning Report this morning as the Minister of Local Government was being interviewed about these water reforms. I took particular note of what he was saying about the options there were for councils going forward. His view was that councils could negotiate with each other to form water entities of some sort so that councils could determine for themselves for example whether the West Coast would amalgamate with Canterbury and so on. He didn't answer the interviewer but I want to put it to him now and it's of particular relevance to this—it wasn't mentioned in the interview this morning but it is relevant now—the Far North District Council and Auckland. Now under the proposed reforms that the Labour Government put in place the Far North District Council would have been amalgamated with Auckland. The bigger entity Auckland—we would have helped to socialise the costs of water provision across quite a wealthy area really and actually an area that is going to struggle to provide adequate water services in the future. Now as it turns out the Far North District Council—we estimate that without water services reforms by 2051 every ratepayer there will end up paying another $8690. That's how much it's going to cost the ratepayers of the Far North District Council.You know Auckland's had Watercare for a long time and—despite the droughts a few years ago when we were all saving water furiously—in terms of supplying water by and large Watercare has worked well enough. There was an absolutely disastrous outcome really in the flooding which my colleague Phil Twyford has referred to particularly in West Auckland where the fact that Watercare had neglected its stormwater system—the creeks the small rivers—really did create a disaster. We had a solution in place for that. The Minister has just casually said Oh well private owners will have to pay."But getting back to the Far North District Council the only solution for the Far North District Council that I can see and possibly some of the other councils north of Auckland even if they don't perceive it that way—Hon Member: Kaipara.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —is to attempt—yes Kaipara thank you; yep—to amalgamate with Auckland. But why would Auckland take them on? So the Minister said "Well we're going to have some solution in place for that." But at the moment he's just walking away from a solution that we had in place. Now I note that the MP for Northland has not been here to plead the case of people in the Far North—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Order! It's not appropriate to talk about members that are not here.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh I'm sorry. No he's not—I take your point. I note however that the MP for Northland has not argued in favour of his constituents so I'll do it on his behalf. Those constituents need to know what solution the Minister has in place. Now it's analogous to the case of Westland and Canterbury; it's analogous to the case of many small district councils and area councils throughout the country. One of the councils I have in mind is Rangitīkei—a rating base of 16000 entities. How could they afford the water services reforms?But in particular in this section of the Act I want to know from the Minister: how is it that he is going to get Auckland to take on the Far North water provision? Because that's the solution we had in place; it was the solution that was going to save people in the Far North $8690. The Minister's just walked away from it and left people in the Far North in the lurch. So he has some sort of vague pie-in-the-sky future where there will be some negotiations but what incentive will there be? What incentive will there be for a larger council to take on the Far North?CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'll just make a note: while I've just arrived I have been watching the debate on TV. I know there are still some Amendment Papers that are yet to be discussed. In urgency with a lack of select committee we actually are looking for a bit broader discussion—and I'm going to call Camilla Belich."