Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Part 2 includes debate on the schedule.

I am pleased to be able to take a call in the debate on Part 2, which is quite a wide part. It refers to responsibility for local government in respect of restricting water supply. It restricts water supply in a number of circumstances, related mainly to the non-payment of costs. The wider issue of costs to consumers and the ability to pay is important. Similarly, Part 2 contains information about meetings, in respect of notifications from territorial authorities on land information memoranda. It also includes the revocation of the former Water Supplies Protection Regulations, which is an issue because it raises the level of disparity of standards, and in the schedule there is a discussion about various changes to those standards.

National is particularly concerned about the costs to local government associated with these changes, particularly as the supplier to various water schemes. Throughout the submission process on this bill we heard a wide and divergent number of views on the costs that this legislation will have on local government as a water supplier. The reason that the cost burden on the supplier is important is that in most cases those costs will be transferred either to the ratepayer or to the user of the water, through whatever mechanism—charging—a local authority or water supplier might use.

The costs have been quite variant. When the bill was introduced we heard that the costs were between $50 million and $250 million, which is quite a significant variation. We had further advice from the officials that the costs could be up to $300 million; then Local Government New Zealand estimated the cost to be much closer to $800 million. If the cost is at the higher level of that range, that would have a significant impact on communities, and that is the reason National members have asked this question of the Minister: “What does the Government think the cost to water schemes to comply will now be?”.

We have also asked the Government where the problem here is. We have asked it to please provide us with the data and the information that shows there is a significant public health risk associated with these changes. Our experience in the Health Committee was that the information being supplied to justify that is not reliable. We state in our minority view that the public does want good-quality water but that it is a trade-off because there is a cost associated with the various levels of quality, and we have wanted the Government to give us an indication on those costs.

💬 Mark Blumsky: Where did the $154 million come from?

We do not know where that came from. Is this the $154 million in terms of the subsidy?

💬 Mark Blumsky: Yes.

Well, that is another set of figures that the Minister has not yet taken a call on to discuss.

I would also like the Government to talk about what impact this legislation will have if it is passed as amended. There is no doubt that some useful amendments have been made to the legislation that, if it is to pass, will make it more workable. But I wonder whether the Government will explain to us what the burden will be on a person in a lifestyle block or in a farming community who supplies water to his or her neighbours. What will the liabilities and obligations on such people be? I suspect that not one member of the Government has been in a position whereby he or she has taken water from a neighbour’s bore. Many members on this side of the Chamber, including myself, have been in the position of getting our domestic water supply, and the supply for our block, from our neighbour, who had a bore. A pipe comes across, it is connected to one’s system, and one is on. It is a very neighbourly arrangement. I did not really pay for it. I maybe gave the neighbour a couple of bottles of wine at the end of the year.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Whisky?

No. It was a very neighbourly arrangement—and that is repeated throughout the whole of the country. I wonder whether a Government member would take a call to explain the original requirements on that person before the legislation was changed, and what the requirements on people who are supplying water to their neighbours on a friendly basis are now. I think members will be surprised to know that when this bill was first introduced there were going to be significant burdens on such parties.

I am very pleased to rise again to speak on Part 2 of this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I am very fond of water. I think water is terribly important to us in New Zealand, and to me personally water is very important. I would like Government members to tell the Committee, because we are very interested to know this, how they are getting on with their scheme. This Labour-led Government said that the Minister of Health would contribute $154 million over the next 10 years to small communities in order to help them to get their drinking-water supplies up to standard. I would like the Minister of Health, or one of the many Ministers who has sat in the chair, to answer that question. In my electorate, which is made up of small communities that administer small, expensive water schemes, those who have tried to get some of that pot of gold from the Government have found that it has not been forthcoming, no matter how hard they have tried.

The commentary on the bill states: “We were informed that most of the large and medium-sized supplies already comply, or almost comply, with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2000.” It goes on: “We understand that these suppliers will have little difficulty in complying with the 2005 standards.” Well, that is just fantastic. It is fantastic for Auckland and Wellington; it is fantastic for Hamilton and Christchurch. But it is not fantastic for the small rural and provincial communities around New Zealand and, in particular, in my electorate of Otago.

In speaking to Part 2, I just want to draw to the attention of the Committee the submission from the Waitaki District Council. Waimate is a small rural community in South Canterbury that is soon to become part of the Waitaki seat. The Waitaki District Council manages the Waimate urban water-supply scheme and six rural water schemes within the Waitaki District. I can assure members that the thought of the implementation of this legislation fills that council and that community with dread. The reason it fills the community and the councillors with dread is that they know full well that it will be not a matter just of the costs associated with the implementation of this legislation but also of the amount of work, officer time, and the cost to the community that will come from both the upgrades themselves and the time that officers will have to spend on making alterations to the council’s planning documents, as required under Part 2.

The submission from the Waitaki District Council states, with reference to the tap-and-cap assistance schemes, that it is aware that there are also a few community supplies within the district that are not managed by the council. That makes the situation even more difficult, because they will also need to access the subsidy programme if they are to improve the quality of the drinking water they supply. In other words, they cannot do it all by themselves. That council is concerned that the criteria could disadvantage these communities through their possible shortfalls in preparing a public health risk-management plan, an inability to find the local share of any subsidy granted, failure to provide an enhanced level of operator-expertise capacity, or sustain ongoing whole-of-life operational, maintenance, and renewals costs.

That paragraph spells out the concerns not just about privately owned small, rural provincial water schemes but about those schemes that are administered by the local authority. Some small water schemes have been just fine for the last 100 years and were put in the ground by the local farmers. There are still some farmers in my region whose fathers put in those schemes, and who until very recently were the only ones who knew where the pipes were; other than that, it was a matter of digging and hoping when there was some work to be done on those schemes. We are talking about small community water schemes here, which are owned and paid for by farmers through water committees or by small local authorities, who simply do not have the resources to comply with the onerous responsibilities of the requirements in this legislation.

Part 2 is a very small part of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It contains five clauses, two of which are about consequential amendments and revocation. There has been quite an amount of talk from the Opposition in regard to this legislation. I seem to recall that the council in my own area—New Plymouth District Council—made a submission on this bill, which said it supported the bill. I am told the council supported it because it has already made the necessary investment. That was very controversial at the time—years and years ago—and it resulted in a complete overturning of the local council, a change of mayor, and all sorts of things. The council made a big investment in water quality, and the reason for doing so was that the people in the area wanted to have an assurance of water quality. I think water quality is very important.

There was much debate earlier about the small local authority - type water schemes, the importance of them, and the costs involved. I think a bigger cost has not been taken into account by some of those who have spoken against this bill. For example, what is the cost to our tourist industry of an outbreak of a water-borne disease in one of our small tourism resorts—perhaps in a skiing village, a lakeside resort, a motor camp, or something like that? What would be the cost, in terms of the reputation of New Zealand, of a severe outbreak? Those issues are all very easy to bleat about.

The bill has some particular provisions. One of the things that Mr Ryall talked about was that a particular supplier may be supplying water from a bore to his or her neighbour next door. He asked about the current impositions on that supplier, and what they will be after the passing of this legislation. Well, Mr Ryall forgets about the Building Act. The Building Act actually requires the owner, when water is being supplied to a building, to be able to assure himself or herself that the water being supplied is of sufficient quality for human consumption. In other words, if a person owns a building, that person has to be able to assure himself or herself, and any tenants or other people to whom water is being supplied, that the water is of potable quality. If someone is supplying water under an ancient agreement that has been in action for some years, at the moment—as the member said—it may be done by grace and favour. The water may be supplied in return for a couple of bottles of wine a year, or what have you. That is a contract, if you like—and it may not even be formal—between the supplier and the user. If there is no written contract—and presumably a written contract would spell out the quality of water—then I guess that the Building Act provisions will have to be the ones that apply.

Additionally, the bill has a lower threshold so that if a grace and favour supply—the goodwill kind of supply—is to fewer than 16 permanent residents, it falls below the threshold of “neighbourhood drinking-water supply”, and so is not covered by the majority of the provisions in this bill. In other words, I guess the matter reverts back to being one of common sense and cooperation between neighbours on such a supply. It goes back to the Building Act provisions, which say that the owner of a building is responsible for ensuring that the water supplied to that building is up to the quality required for human ingestion—that is, potable water.

Therefore, I think that much of the static that we are hearing about this bill is on the basis of “We don’t want to pay an additional cost to ensure that our water is safe for people to drink.” We should seriously look at that attitude and ask whether it is a suitable attitude for the 21st century.

Gosh, it will be fun to respond to the comments made by the Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven. His is an interesting attitude. It really comes down to this fact—and I will read to the Committee from the Local Government New Zealand submission, which states: “The local government sector is, on the whole, supportive of the outcomes that the bill is trying to achieve, but has a number of concerns.” Its biggest concern is money. There are other concerns, which I will touch on in a moment.

One of the things that concerned local government—and we had submissions from a number of the councils—was that the Local Government Act 2002 requires local authorities to consider the social, cultural, economic, and environmental well-being of their communities in their decision making. They also have to consult, of course. The local authorities are already doing that. It then comes down to particular councils and what their ratepayers think are the highest priorities. They have to uphold a number of Acts—for example, the Health Act, and the Building Act. They also have other priorities—solid waste and human waste disposal, road safety, recreation facilities, etc.

But what we have here is drinking water being singled out as a priority above all of the other issues. That was of considerable concern to Local Government New Zealand. The Kaipara District Council made this comment: “The proposed legislation overrides the community engagement principles of the Local Government Act 2002 and disenfranchises our people.” Local government in my own electorate, in the form of the Timaru District Council, commented to me that it has prioritised the treatment of waste over many of the other responsibilities of the council—it has spent millions and millions of dollars on it. The Prime Minister herself has said that the rest of New Zealand’s councils should follow the Timaru District Council’s example when it comes to waste disposal. It has spent an awful lot of money on waste disposal because that is what the ratepayers wanted, even at considerable expense. But all of a sudden, councils are now given this other priority that supersedes all else, and ratepayers are told that whether or not they think they need it, it should be got on with.

It is of considerable importance that we realise local authorities are 20 percent of the suppliers, but—and this is the important bit—they supply 70 percent of the water. So an awful lot of suppliers are not local authorities. An awful lot of suppliers will not be able to supply their own water, under this bill, because they cannot afford to improve the water supply.

I will make another couple of comments. It would be interesting for the Minister to respond and tell us, if clean drinking-water is so important—and the National Party certainly believes that it is—why we still have some self-suppliers, such as schools and some hospitals, failing to meet the standards or having poor monitoring. Because it is not covered by this bill. This legislation, by any stretch, will not solve all of the problems. There are 624 schools and early childhood centres that are not connected to council water supplies—in other words, they are self suppliers—and 537 will not have to comply, even though they either fail the standards or have poor monitoring.

It was interesting to hear the Minister talk about grace and favour of water suppliers towards their neighbours. It is interesting that that is what we will have to rely on and that there was common sense before.

Let us talk about common sense. Common sense would indicate that we would pay for solving a problem. But then we get back to the point that we have not defined the problem. In fact, in the case of the Rangitīkei District Council, Bob Buchanan was telling us that he found that the statistics were horribly, horribly wrong. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research does not have a good way of collecting these statistics, and therefore the whole science behind this bill is questionable—we have said it over and over again. In fact, we have councils saying: “Show us the numbers. Show us that campylobacter is caused by water, rather than by chicken.”, when we know that largely the response to campylobacter is to clean up the act when it comes to the selling of poultry. We know that most of the notifications about campylobacter are not related to water.