Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to speak on Part 2 of this Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I particularly want to reflect on why and how it is that this part was structured as it was because as we considered the desire of the scheme users to have back what they saw as their assets and their scheme there were concerns raised—at least if not with officials certainly with others other than the submitters in Gore—as to how we could be sure that it was the will of all of the people involved: the scheme users the people that live within that scheme area but also that of the other residents—citizens if you will—of the district. It was with some consideration that we debated whether or not it should be affected through a referendum and the structure of that.The fact that we have chosen and reflected in this bill that the provisions of the Local Electoral Act 2001 will apply but with any necessary modifications to permit under this legislation—it was a reflection that we wanted to ensure that the process for the rest of New Zealand would look and be robust and thorough and appropriate as we would expect in any other local government change. But we also had to debate and reach a position on whether residents who weren't scheme users and indeed people who might not be scheme users but live in that immediate vicinity should have the sole right to determine what would happen with those assets or would the argument be that because legally they were under the ownership of the district council that every ratepayer within the boundaries of the district should in fact have a right to have their say on that as well.I think very sensibly the Governance and Administration Committee determined that it should be people that are currently in the scheme or who live within the scheme's physical boundaries who should have the right to have that say. But it was something that was given very serious consideration by the committee as we worked through this bill. We were balancing a need to make sure that the process itself around the transfer would stand up to scrutiny—not just from the people affected but generally under the principles of law and from other New Zealanders—but that it wasn't going to allow for someone who had no interest and no potential future interest to determine the future of the scheme and the scheme assets.It's my view that the bill we have before us now in this process reflects just that. Also because on top of the administrative process of the referendum it requires that the company is able to establish and show to the council's satisfaction that the company is able to deliver water through that supply that will meet water standards as set down by the medical officer of health—and not just standards as may exist today but there will be a continuing obligation on the company to meet those standards in the future as well.The question I do have for the Minister in the chair—and it is a real question but perhaps not the most significant of all questions around the bill—is that we've put a sunset on this that the referendum must be completed within five years of the commencement of this Act. And on the one hand it seems like that should be readily attained because we know that the scheme users want to get this done very quickly and we have the word which we would take at face value of officials from the district councils that they will comply with an earlier referendum which they undertook to determine whether they should comply with the request. But I do wonder whether the member feels that the sunset clause on the eligibility to undertake the referendum is appropriate.It's probably a small risk but aren't there risks that once the bill is passed—by the time the referendum is able to come about it will be after a local body election—the Gore District Council make-up may have changed? Is there a risk to scheme users that come November/December of this year after these local body elections they might find themselves with a council make-up that is not of the same mind as the Gore District Council has been to this point? So it is theoretically possible at least that they could find themselves in an environment which is obstructive to the purpose of the bill and is obstructive to their desire to move this through.So I'd simply ask the Minister in the chair—and he's obviously just been consulting with officials—despite us accepting the recommendation at the time for this five-year horizon whether on reflection it might be more appropriate that some other horizon if indeed any horizon at all is permitted. There is a risk—I accept it's not huge but it's a risk at the moment that's out of our control because it could arise from the democratic process and election of councillors. So I'd love to hear the Minister's view on that.