Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Actually it's a real pleasure to speak on this the preliminary provisions but particularly the purpose taking in mind some of the history that the member in the chair Mark Patterson has just given us. I have a question for Mr Patterson. In all that we know and all that we learnt through the process of this bill traversing to this point particularly the submissions from the good people of Ōtama in Gore would he hold that clause 3(a) really genuinely reflects both the purpose of the bill from the perspective of the scheme users? As Mr Patterson pointed out it was the scheme users that built this scheme. They literally built it themselves. They certainly paid for all of the assets. They have paid for all of the maintenance from its very inception. They have paid for every physical upgrade and every maintenance and fix activity on the scheme and yet clause 3(a) says to specify the process … must follow to authorise a transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme" which includes the assets—to authorise a transfer. I would suggest to the member who is promoting this bill who sponsors this bill and who is in the chair that reflecting on what we heard from the scheme users and the people in Gore far better wording that would accurately portray both the legal purpose of what the bill effects and also the purpose of the bill for the scheme users and people of the district—that instead it should read: "to specify the process that the Gore District Council must follow to return the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to scheme users through the vehicle of the Otama Rural Water Ltd" that being the company that will be vested with those assets. That's exactly what the scheme users and indeed most people around Gore who support this bill see that its purpose is. For them it is not some dry legalese wording of taking assets which are currently under the legal ownership of the Gore District Council and transferring them to some dry company that meets the conditions of New Zealand law. To them it is an absolute reflection and recognition that assets which they have always held to be theirs are being returned to them through the vehicle of a company because New Zealand law requires that. In fact they told the committee when we visited Gore to hear the submissions that the only reason the whole question of who owned the scheme and the scheme assets ever arose was because the scheme users were advised that they weren't in the form of a legal entity that under New Zealand law would permit recognition of the ownership of those assets. So it was by de facto rather than by any intent—certainly of the scheme users and probably also never of the district council either. There was never an intent that those assets should be taken from the people that had paid for them built them and maintained them and given to another group of people. It was simply in their minds an understanding and a convenience that under law the structure they had at the time could not allow legal ownership of said assets. So I ask the member in the chair to reflect on this. This is our opportunity to not just pass law that can enable the scheme to go back legally under the control of its users; it's an opportunity for a small change in wording to make sure that the law that effects that change actually reflects the purpose of the scheme users—the people that have always paid for this who always will pay for it. All we need to do—and I'm more than happy to help the member draft a Supplementary Order Paper for this but I think it is a very simple one. We could simply change the words "follow to authorise a transfer" to "follow to return the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to scheme users through the Otama Rural Water Ltd". That way we—if this bill were to exit both this stage and get a successful third reading and I believe based on the previous reading that all members of the House will support that—can be sure that what we pass into law adequately and comprehensively reflects not just a legal purpose but the purpose of the people for whom the legislation is intended to benefit."