Patterson MarkGORE DISTRICT COUNCIL (OTAMA RURAL WATER SUPPLY) BILLFirst ReadingMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I move That the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.It is with genuine honour that I stand to introduce the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill to the House. In doing so I acknowledge my fellow southern coalition colleague Dr Liz Craig and Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker for their assistance to date. The purpose of the bill is to specify the process for the Gore District Council to transfer the ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Limited. The bill seeks to allow the council to override section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 which requires councils to meet their obligations to water supply. Under this Act councils must not divest ownership of water schemes supplying more than 200 households. The Ōtama scheme provides water to 223 households two schools and a marae. In seeking this exemption the Gore council are drawing on the very clear precedent set by the South Taranaki District Council in regard to passing the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act 2013. The transfer also enjoys the support of the local iwi Hokonui Rūnanga. We can come to the detail later but first some history.It is said that the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme was first mooted by local farmer Ian Robertson at a branch meeting of the Otama Federated Farmers in 1969 or 1970. Until then farmers and households had relied on natural springs creeks and dams for potable water and stock water. Contrary to popular myth Southland can dry out in the summer and water supplies were unreliable. One local farmer recounted to me bringing up a family with two children on a mere 50 gallons of water per day pumped from a spring. Prominent among earlier drivers of the scheme were local identities like Stuart Baird Charlie Kerse Hugh Chadwick and Les Morrison and of course no mention of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme can be complete without mentioning Tom Affleck a foundation member who's been the chairman of the scheme for the past 25 years.The first stages of the scheme got under way in 1972 and it was financed by a combination of contributions from the farmers and a soon-to-be-repaid loan from the Southland County Council and a requirement that every farmer contribute 90 hours of labour to construct the scheme. These were certainly different times. Stages two and three were soon to follow and stage three was completed in 1976. Stage three enjoyed a one-for-one subsidy from central government. Upon completion the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme provided potable and stock water for the districts of Wendon Wendon Valley Chatton Maitland Waikaka Valley McNab Whiterigg and of course Ōtama. These are districts to the north and north-west of Gore. The scheme itself is fed from a well near the Pyramid Bridge next to the Mataura River. Ōtama itself is idyllic countryside settled around a settlement that comprises a community hall a church and a primary school. And while you may not have been to Ōtama the community itself is instantly recognisable to all of us as typical of districts up and down New Zealand. The production from such has quite literally built this country.The scheme operated seamlessly and has done ever since in its commission under the competent governance of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee. It has consistently delivered high-quality water to its consumers. The maintenance contract has been with the Gore District Council. Over the 15-year period since 2003 the whole main pipeline has been replaced to bring it up to modern standards. The scheme maintenance and capital expenses have been financed by a targeted rates demand but the money has always accrued in a specialist designated account and a healthy surplus sits on hand to provide for contingencies—and so it would have continued if not for some concern within the consumers about the rising cost of maintenance. The committee exercising due diligence sought to consider bringing in private enterprise to maintain the scheme. It was at this juncture that the contention of the true ownership of the scheme came to a head in September 2016.The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee contended not unreasonably that they had financed and built the scheme and that the ownership should rest with them. The Gore District Council contended that they had inherited the scheme as a result of the washup of the assets from the old now defunct Southland County Council as a result of the local government reforms in the Local Government Amendment Act 1989. The dispute generated some heated local debate including a packed meeting at the Otama Hall in May 2017. It was a meeting for which I was in attendance. The Gore District Council to their credit recognised the depth of public feeling on this issue and while they were confident of their legal position as owners decided to put the matter to rest by way of a binding referendum for the scheme's 223 consumers. In July 2017 the resultant poll gave a resounding 76 percent endorsement of the scheme resting in the ownership of the committee and the company that would be formed from such. So the purpose of this bill was born.I must address the elephant in the room: the Havelock water crisis of 2015 did highlight the imperative nature of the safety and security of our drinking-water supplies. The resultant report does recommend actions that point towards public policy heading in a different direction to that which this bill would be taking us. However I urge the House to focus on the matter at hand. This is not a bill that seeks to determine the direction of wider public policy. This bill is about local democracy: that a local dispute can be settled in a mature and informed manner by local people. This bill is about enabling local people to make local decisions about important local issues and we must use the laws of the day to dictate that outcome not seek to pre-empt future Government legislation. The committee have worked diligently to ensure the compliance of whatever legal water requirements are deemed necessary by law and to that end they have reacted to the Havelock inquiry findings by issuing a permanent boiled-water notice to the drinking water and since May 2018 the water has been treated with chlorine. Of course it is worth emphasising that the people who have voted for this action are also the consumers of the water. There is absolutely no way they would have taken this measure if they did not have total confidence and belief in the governance structure of the scheme to provide that safe water.If this bill is to proceed Part 2 of the bill sets out the process for obtaining authorisation to transfer the scheme. This largely follows sections 131 to 135 of the Local Government Act 2002. Part 2 clause 5 requires the order to transfer the ownership of the scheme to the company which includes the requirements for the council to consult the medical officer of health and requires a further referendum using the first-past-the-post electoral system. Part 2 clause 6 states that the Gore council is responsible for conducting a referendum in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. Clause 8 details the company's requirements to satisfy its obligations to the council and clause 9 is specifics of the transfer plan. Part 3 deals with the matter relating to the transfer of the scheme including how land is transferred taxation accounted for and notifications required.This is a thorough process that has the support of both the Gore District Council and the unit-holding consumers to the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. It is not only the right thing for this House to support this fundamental tenet of local of democracy; it is also recognising that this bill has the rock-solid legal precedent with regard to the Cold Creek Act of 2013. This is our opportunity as a House to endorse and support this process. I commend this bill to the House.