Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): Unlike the very capable chair of the Governance and Administration Committee Brett Hudson I will make a very brief contribution for the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill.Now when we talk about assets actually most people talk about the wells the pipes and the concrete. Actually for me it is a very beautiful piece of land because when I was in Gore Brett and I and some other people went to see the scheme. It was very beautiful scenery. I took some pictures actually that I sent back to my friends in China and I said These are New Zealand farms." and they were simply astonished at how beautiful the farms were.So the bill itself is largely about the transfer of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme from the Gore District Council to the Otama Rural Water Supply committee. So we have some parties here: one is the Otama Rural Water Supply committee second is the Gore District Council and then we have the users. So these are different parties. Now I would say when we come to the users my definition of the user actually is very different from the literal definition of a user because these users are not just paying the fees the cost of maintenance; they were also the contributors to the construction of the scheme. So in that sense from the very beginning these users did have the sense of ownership although in reality at the moment you can see they do not necessarily own the scheme.So the historical I would say weakness—because on the one hand the Otama Rural Water Supply committee has the right to govern the operation of the scheme; on the other hand the operation and all the maintenance has been done by the council. So the council looks after all the details including the field work including repairmen and including technical advice—all these things. So you have a committee governing the operation and you have the council doing the operation and then you have the users paying for the operation. So this is a very complicated process. Well who owns the scheme? Well while there is no clear definition of ownership here the council itself traditionally or historically has the sense that the council has the legal responsibility for the scheme. In that sense the council feels that it has ownership over the scheme. On the other hand the users over these years—a few decades—built a scheme and they paid for the maintenance and you have the committee formed by the users although there is a representative from the council. So overall the committee has been run by the representatives of the users. This is basically a reasonably complicated situation.The bill itself will try to resolve this kind of complexity by authorising or by requiring the council to transfer the ownership to the Otama Rural Water Supply committee. That is a good thing because when we were in Gore we listened to the submissions to the hearings and then all the users were very very keen and very very enthusiastic. They supplied us with good food and very warmly welcomed us. So they really believed that they owned the scheme and the council itself now believes they can do that because some other rural water supply schemes in that area have been transferred to the users.So therefore this is not necessarily a precedent. This is simply a bill—a very useful bill although it's a very small bill—to make this happen. I believe this will serve the users and I believe the users do have the right to own the scheme. The scheme pitches on a very very beautiful piece of land. Thank you."