Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Mr Court actually to speak on the Water Services Bill. I think the members in the National Party duly noted—and I think it has to be noted—that some 70000-odd rural small water schemes are up and down rural New Zealand and they're going to be encapsulated by this. I just want to make one note if I may. Eugenie Sage the Green member who's just resumed her seat referenced Havelock North. Now what happened in Havelock North was a travesty: four people lost their lives; there were several thousand that got ill. Havelock North has got 14500 people in it and it falls under the Hastings District Council which encapsulates some 80000 people and I think we're not having the honest conversation. We're confusing the issue here between rural small water schemes that the National member made reference to and the issue that the Green member raised with Havelock North. They're diametrically opposite in the way they're run. I live in a rural small town of 400 or 500 people. Yes it has its own water scheme and I imagine chlorination fluorination would potentially not be an issue for them. However in the larger Kaipara area catchment there's 75 percent that are self-serving water schemes: farms that have one or two buildings on them like dwellings marae the Scout hall etc. These would all be encapsulated in this piece of legislation. I think what is even further concerning to a lot of people in rural New Zealand is you talk about—sorry; I beg your pardon Mr Speaker. We collectively have been talking in this parliamentary debate about chlorination. Well if the methodology that's pursuant to that is wrong at a very small localised level who is it incumbent upon to get it right and where would any potential legal framework for prosecution go should someone be poisoned or get ill because of chlorination? So we don't think this bill has been well-thought-out at all. We do however think the premise—the desire to get safe drinking water across New Zealand—is important. It's deeply important. We've seen what's happened as I reiterate in Havelock North and Dunedin. The ACT Party supports the premise of the bill and I think that's important. We all want safe drinking water but there has to be a carve-out for the 70000 small rural supplies and water schemes. That encapsulates all sorts of small communities. We are saying as the ACT Party that there has to be a carve-out for those and we support the amendment that we believe the National Party is going to table for a minimum of 30 dwellings or less than that because there's marae up and down the country. Papa kāinga will be affected by all of this: the aspects of what it would mean to register to be compliant and to have any authority in auditing. I noted as I was reading this piece of legislation on behalf of my colleague clause 110 I believe about warrantless access to marae. That was obviously noted by the Minister and it raised a lot of eyebrows and concerns. Yet again I think this legislation needs further dialogue. I won't go on Mr Speaker because as you're acutely aware I'm speaking on behalf of my colleague Mr Court who would normally be speaking to this piece of legislation. But we as the ACT Party support this second reading. However we are asking for the amendment to be noted that there should be an exemption status given for those dwellings with 30 or less supplies which basically gives effect and pause and recognition to all the rural irrigation schemes farm schemes and those that have stock water schemes etc. which filter into the various farm households. So we support this second reading. We desperately would like to see that amendment agreed to because again—I reiterate the point—speaking as a farmer that supports rural communities we want some clarity that these small communities will be exempt from this. Thank you very much Mr Speaker.