Patterson MarkGORE DISTRICT COUNCIL (OTAMA RURAL WATER SUPPLY) BILLSecond ReadingMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I move That the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a second time.I'm delighted to see the return of this bill to the Parliament. Just before I start could I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Mr Tom Affleck who is the chairman of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee—a major driver of this bill. He has been the chairman for 25 years and a foundation member.My delight in the bill coming back—and I'm sure Tom's delight—isn't universally shared. There was some commentary actually in the Otago Daily Times by their political reporter Mike Houlahan who noted with some trepidation that the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill would result in a repeat of the first reading's very poor attempts to mimic the southern rolled r". So just to recap on the reason for this bill coming before the House the bill seeks to override section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 which states that councils must not divest ownership of water schemes servicing more than 200 households. The Otama Rural Water Supply scheme services 223 households. There are 253 connections. There are two schools and a marae involved in this.The reason for being here is there is a historical dispute over the ownership of this scheme. The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee quite properly believe that since its inception—it was first mooted in 1969 I think I recounted in the first reading. A local farmer Ian Robertson at a Federated Farmers meeting mooted having a stock water scheme and the productivity gains that could be got out of that through having consistent clean water supplies for their stock and being able to subdivide up their paddocks more and get better grazing performance out of their farms and of course having the benefits of being able to supply consistent potable water for the houses. That early discussion resulted in stage one being completed in 1972 and it was actually paid for by the farmers themselves. Some of it was provisioned by a loan from the then Southland District Council which was soon repaid. So the farmers had paid for it all and they didn't only pay with money; they paid with their own toil. It speaks of course to a time past. They were each required to put in 90 hours of their own labour.The completion of stage two and stage three of the scheme went on through to about 1976 and it now as it did then currently covers about 73000 hectares in the Otama area which is an area just directly north-north-west of Gore. It has been over that time a very well-run scheme and I just note that in the last 15 years alone they've replaced the entire mainline pipeline. The submissions to the subcommittee were overwhelming in that regard. All of them referenced the fine job that the scheme governors had done in running the scheme over that well nearly 50 years now and how trusted that was. As one submitter—I think Hamish Mackay—noted they're the ones with the most skin in the game. They're the users of this water they're drinking it and so if they didn't have confidence then no one would. We also note through that that they have got significant support from the Hokonui Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu.The Gore council in its position contended that it did own the scheme. It contended that it had assumed ownership of the scheme with the wash-up in the Local Government Amendment Act of 1989. So it was just a plain dispute. I note within the debate within the departmental reports that have come back that we're seeking to drag this into water quality and looking at the situation around the review of the three waters which I believe is coming into the Parliament in about June of this year led by Minister Mahuta. This is actually a bill about local democracy. It's about local people making local decisions. The Gore District Council decided to put this dispute to a referendum where they got 75 percent participation and 76 percent of the users of the scheme voted in favour of the Otama Rural Water Supply committee assuming the ownership and the governance and they will in due course form Otama Rural Water Ltd to continue to supply the services that they have for nearly 50 years. So this bill is about local democracy. It does have behind it the rock-solid precedent of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act of 2013 in their identical Act. This scheme and this bill certainly draws on that precedent so we believe we're on very firm ground.Just looking at the submissions and some of the issues raised all of which are totally covered and accepted by the committee as it seeks to take rightful ownership of the scheme—in clause 4 there has been a direction that we should just clarify that with the term "water treatment chlorination system" to be added into clause 4 to make it compliant with the Health Act of 1956. I would say that the scheme governors have made it absolutely clear that they will comply with whatever requirements are placed on them to continue to provide safe water. While there had been some suggestion that we might delay the return of this bill to the House until that June date it was felt that we needed to keep progressing this because actually the issues are going to be the issues no matter what the ownership of the scheme is. The farmers themselves are savvy enough to know that if there's a significant increase in cost through having to comply with new three waters regulations it would be passed on to them anyway by the Gore council so they know that whatever the outcome of that they will have to comply with the new standards and as I say they have a long history.Of course there is also clause 5 the clarification around the referendum and the five-year period that that clarifies in I think subclause (1A) of that clause. There were a couple of other small technical matters: the fact that it was clarified that it would be zero rated for GST etc.I would note that the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme committee in bringing this bill forward and the Gore council in bringing this forward have—as I referenced earlier the Hokonui Rūnanga have voiced their support. The Southern District Health Board have also given their blessing. The Medical Officer of Health Dr Marion Poore described this as being owned by the relevant users. So we got a very clear message of confidence in the competence of the current committee to run this scheme.Just in conclusion I think we have traversed most of it. It is quite a simple bill. As I say this is not about trying to pre-empt public policy on water quality and where that might go. This is a very simple matter of respecting local democracy of where the true ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme should be and respecting the democratic process that was lawfully undertaken by the Gore District Council to determine this outcome. New Zealand First and myself in particular have absolute pleasure in commending this bill back to the House in the second reading and look forward to the participation of the rest of the speakers.I would actually just like to circle back and thank the committee for going down to Gore to hear the submissions. I think that was a great acknowledgment and a great thing for the Parliament to do to make it more convenient for those farmers and I know that they really appreciated that. Thank you."