O'Connor Damien: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 20 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8051. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill like many things is about money. It is as simple as that. On one hand you have the South Taranaki District Council looking down the barrel of significant costs to its ratepayers to upgrade a water system and looking perhaps a little late at a comprehensive system of water delivery to its ratepayers through its district. I applaud the council for the planning but it has now discovered a deal that was made some time ago with the people who have controlled this Cold Creek rural water supply scheme a deal that was supposed to transfer ownership to them that is actually not the best solution for all ratepayers across the district. 
The tension I guess has meant that the only way of resolution is through the passage of this piece of legislation. I am not sure that it is the right solution to what is a big issue. The control and the cost of water is an issue at the forefront of many many rural districts and indeed the whole agricultural sector. I guess it comes down to a fear of farmers on the one hand about relinquishing ownership of this scheme—a scheme that was built up with a taxpayers’ money subsidy and the farmers’ contribution to be fair to them; it was built up to deliver them water in the South Taranaki District at a relatively low cost and they want to keep that cost low. That is a fair expectation. They sat down with the council and negotiated the transfer. But in fact the Labour Government stepped in—and I think we are very proud of that—to say that we will not allow the transfer into private hands of water schemes that are basically there for ratepayers for public reticulation. That is a core part not only of the New Zealand lifestyle but of the expectations of anyone living anywhere in the world. The fact that we have got water and have often taken it for granted in rural areas does not mean to say that we should not move—and the previous Labour Government recognised this—to secure supply and ensure we have a standard of water that is safe for drinking in the long term and not just in the short term. 
 So a number of changes happened when Labour came in that prevented what was in principle an agreement here to transfer this water supply from the council basically into the hands of the farmers. And I think that was fair enough. I think we have to give the councils an opportunity to make sure that a tool like this scheme does not go from their tool box when they have a legal obligation to ensure supply across the district to all ratepayers. I think they have about 13 different components of their water supply system delivering to all the ratepayers and they want to consolidate them so that the higher standards of water supply—that is the treatment required and the security required now under law—can be delivered in a more efficient way. 
So it is a bit of a dilemma here. We have indicated that we would support this but the more we look into it I have to say the more I have sympathy for the council. The council has astutely as I say done some planning which identifies this scheme here as a core component particularly for Opunake of a reliable water supply. The farmers also need reliable water. There are peaks and there are troughs in terms of demand and they have invested in a scheme that stores some of the water that gives them the supply when they need it and that at off-peak times can then supply Opunake with reliable water when needed.  
So it is a complex dilemma and we here in Parliament a long way from reality are trying to sort out a problem. I am not convinced in my reading of this that actually we have got it right. I am not sure what will happen if the ownership is in fact transferred over to the company. I am not sure what will happen when the council has to meet its obligation to provide high-quality water to all its ratepayers which is what we expect of our own councils.  
There are a number of issues tied up in here. As I say the complex one is the cost of water the value of water and whether those who had the benefit of previous schemes of subsidies from central government—these are the farmers who had the wisdom to take up those subsidies—have the right to have full ownership and control of the scheme. I would suggest not. There is still an element of obligation back to the taxpayers or ratepayers in whatever solution is finally arrived at. There are requirements regardless of whether it be for the farmers or the council. There are requirements to upgrade to spend some capital and upgrade the system. I am told it is about $8 million which is quite a lot of money for a relatively small number of farmers perhaps if they were to bring it up to speed but maybe a lesser cost if spread out across all the ratepayers of the South Taranaki District Council.  
I am not wanting to labour this other than to I guess work with the local member and say that I am sure he is trying to do his best here but the issue of water and the transfer into private hands is something that Labour finds very very sensitive. We do not believe that we have the right to transfer supply to ratepayers or residents or New Zealanders. The supply should not be in the hands of private companies—end of story. End of story. It is one of those things that I think the pioneers of this country fought for battled for invested in and designed so that we can enjoy the benefits of what is a very generous amount of rainfall in most parts of the country—a great supply of water one that we have probably abused over many years and taken for granted and that we are just now starting to appreciate which is why both the council and the farmers who want ownership of the scheme realise that it is important to sort this out.  
We are not in any way wanting to undermine the farmers’ viability or just lump a whole lot more cost on to their farming operations but we do want to make sure that we do not through precedent or through individual circumstances for this district do something that we do not intend. The unintended consequences of the passage of this bill I guess are one of the things I am concerned about and I am sure my colleague Andrew Little as the local representative will have more to say on that.  
I will not go on for too much longer other than to say that this is important. There are some precedents. The member in the chair Chester Borrows knows that. We are not trying to be disruptive or awkward but I do think we need to make sure that we are doing the right thing here and maybe he could get up and give us some guarantees on that. Thank you.