Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

In taking a call on clauses 1 to 3, in particular I would like to talk not only about the wider principles associated with the bill but also about the commencement date and the ability a future Government might have in order to have a more flexible and phased implementation of this legislation, if the costs require. We heard a very interesting debate from members on the National Party side highlighting the major areas of concern we have with this bill. We have been concerned about the fact that the Government cannot give us a firm indication about the cost of this bill, as amended, to local governments and other water suppliers throughout New Zealand. As members have said, the original advice in the bill, in its regulatory statements attached to the bill, was that this would cost between up to $50 million to $250 million. The select committee was subsequently advised that it would be more in the vicinity of $300 million, and Local Government New Zealand came forward and estimated $800 million. Since that time there have been some changes to the bill, which I think in many ways will mitigate some of that cost. But the Government has been unable to provide us with any indication of what those costs would be.

The second area that we have sought information from the Government on is a further clarification of the problem that the Government is seeking to cure. Of course, everybody is in favour of safe drinking-water, but the question is at what cost, and whether the current drinking-water is unsafe.

We asked the Government to provide us with evidence of drinking-water diseases and the consequences of them. Some members opposite gave us standard numbers that have been trotted out from time to time. But we were able to refer to the evidence of Bob Buchanan, the Mayor of Rangitīkei District, which cast some doubt over those statistics, when he talked about the fact that his district had indicated in official data that it had some sort of epidemic of water-borne diseases, and his research found that even the people collecting the data said that only half of it was ever investigated or confirmed.

So there really is an issue here of what the problem is, and what it will cost. We have not had any answers to those questions from the Government at this stage. Having said that, I think some sensible changes have been made in the select committee that mitigate the worst elements of this bill. There is increasing flexibility about neighbourly water supplies. I notice that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, called it a grace and favour water supply. I thought that was very unusual. “Grace and favour” is a rather regal phrase, I say to the Minister.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: I thought that was your phrase.

No, we never use the words “grace and favour”. Goodness me! That is a rather regal phrase. I get my water from my neighbour through grace and favour! Grace and favour is—

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: It’s a Taranaki phrase.

It is a Taranaki phrase! Some changes have been made to those who get their water through grace and favour from their neighbours, and I think those are more flexible arrangements. But I thought the Minister’s comments about—

R Doug Woolerton: Farmers use that term all the time. Is the member not aware of that?

Oh, rubbish! They absolutely do not. There are some changes that I think will be sensible. I must admit, though, that on hearing the Minister’s description earlier about the Building Act and all these obligations I was a little worried about what was going to happen with that. Also, I think the very good amendments that have been made by the select committee are the changes that will allow a future Government a more flexible time line for the phasing in of the various requirements that were put in. I think they will be useful amendments, to allow that to happen. I think the Government will find that this is going to be a lot more expensive than it thinks. The Government will not actually put a number on it. I invite the Minister in the chair, who I must say should be congratulated on at least trying to participate in the debate and convey some information, to get some advice on what are the expected costs to local governments and water suppliers, because it goes to the heart of the bill. Everyone wants quality, but depending on the quality, it is a cost. Surely local communities should be able to make the decision about what level of quality suits them and is in their best interests. For a Government that talks about its close relationship with local government, it is remarkably ignorant of local government’s view.

I follow that most excellent speech made by the Opposition spokesperson on health and next health Minister, Tony Ryall. He made an interesting point about local communities, which I want to pick up as I speak to the title and commencement of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. The point I want to pick up, which Tony Ryall so eloquently made, is the one about local authorities undertaking a cost and benefit analysis for any project that comes their way, and as part of that cost and benefit analysis—and I am not talking about grace and favour here; I am talking about cost—[Interruption] I do not even know what grace and favour means.

We are talking about water, here. This is a serious issue. [Interruption] Ah, here we have it—a Minister in a dying Government. We had the D team, and we had the backbenchers, who were understandably disappointed because their political careers are over before they started, just about. But now we have moved forward. We are now on to the C team of Ministers, who are about to become disappointed, and whose only recourse is to sit on the bleachers and go snap, snap, snap. I want to thank them again for the attention they are giving me. I love water. The attention I have received over this issue has been most gratifying. In my electorate of Otago, which I wrested from David Parker, who is now a list MP, I have had the most wonderful support and the most wonderful attention, so I say thank you to those Ministers who are sitting on the other side of the Chamber. They are very quickly realising that with Labour at 14 percent behind National in the polls and the poll results getting worse every day, they have very little left to do but to go snip, snip, snip, and snap, snap, snap wherever they can.

But I will return to the bill, and to its title and commencement. This bill has caused a lot of worry for local authorities throughout New Zealand. In my last contribution to the debate, I noted that metropolitan areas and cities are mainly compliant with the provisions of this bill but that small communities and small local authorities are not. This Government has ceased to listen. It is out of touch with its constituency if it thinks a bill that suits Aucklanders will suit rural and provincial New Zealand. Perhaps that is part of the reason that the Government is 14 points behind National in the polls. Clearly, this drinking-water bill is causing an awful lot of anguish for local authorities because of the costs it will impose.

The Waitaki District Council has spent $12 million on upgrading its water scheme—no thanks to the Government. The council had a fear that if it left that hugely costly project for any longer, it would just become more expensive. I wonder how many other local authorities have imposed, or are imposing, huge costs upon themselves because they are fearful of what will come through in these drinking-water standards. What about the very real fear felt by those in smaller drinking-water schemes about the costs of upgrading their drinking water and how they will pay for that? How will people who live in provincial New Zealand be able to fund their $2,500 share of the capital upgrade of a drinking-water scheme?

This dying Government has stopped listening to people. It is driving this bill through, assuming that because Aucklanders and Wellington people, whose water supplies are mostly compliant, can afford it, then the good people in the provinces can also afford it. I tell the Committee, from my experience, that people in provincial areas, in small towns and on fixed incomes, cannot afford $2,500 as their share of the capital needed for this upgrade.

It is a privilege to follow Ms Dean because she is the lady who has just given us a speech about—

💬 Jacqui Dean: An excellent speech.

She says it was an excellent speech. She said she wanted to ensure that water is provided for everybody, yet just a little while ago she was writing to the Minister asking for the banning of dihydrogen monoxide—that terrible substance! I tell the member that our view of water—H2O—is about ensuring that the water provided to the people of New Zealand is safe for them to drink. That is what this bill is about.

Ms Dean went on to mention grace and favour—which was also mentioned by the speaker preceding her, Mr Ryall—and she actually said she did not know what “grace and favour” meant. What I was responding to was the sort of goodwill supply that her colleague Tony Ryall was talking about. He said it might be a neighbour providing water to another neighbour from a bore for, perhaps, a couple of bottles of wine a year, or something like that.

I said to Mr Ryall that if it was contracted, then obviously there is a requirement in the contract for the quality of the water. If it is a grace and favour supply, where there is no contract but someone gives the supplier something, such as a bottle of wine or a dozen beer for the privilege of sharing the water, then that is a very different arrangement. That is a goodwill type supply, it is for fewer than 16 permanent residents, and most of the provisions of the bill do not apply. They are covered by the Building Act, of course, but that is about all.

This bill is about providing quality water for the people of New Zealand. Although National has spoken a lot about the costs of providing a quality water-supply, we have not heard about the costs when the supply is not of sufficient quality for human consumption. I think that is the nub of the issue.

I want to start straight off by saying: “No, Minister, we haven’t heard about the costs to New Zealand of water-borne diseases, because they haven’t been adequately measured.” Every time we hear Government members say we need clean, safe drinking-water, free of campylobacter, we realise they are off on the wrong tangent, because people can get campylobacter from eating chicken as well. Water-borne diseases have not been adequately measured, so that issue has not been mentioned.

I want to wrap up the debate by mentioning something I did not have time to cover in my previous speech. Submitters to the Health Committee expressed very significant concern about this bill and its effects. They said the effects would not be fully known until the bill was implemented. Therefore the select committee has recommended that the Minister be required to make annual reports to Parliament on the implementation of the bill for 5 years following its enactment. I must say that that is a fairly good safety mechanism but it is an indication that we could not be satisfied that the information before us was giving us adequate information about how the implementation of this bill would affect ratepayers.

I reiterate that the National Party supports all practicable steps being taken to improve drinking water, and drinking-water standards, and that where there is a clear link between contaminated drinking-water and resultant infections—that is the essence of the matter—the water suppliers be required to take action to prevent reoccurrence. That is absolutely fair and reasonable. However, it is our view that avoidance of all risks carries a very high cost for ratepayers. In particular, I have said that some drinking-water suppliers are incredibly pristine, and we hear from local residents that the water tastes fantastic, but these particular drinking-water suppliers have learnt that they may have to treat that water; so it may not always continue to taste that way. They may have to do that, because there is a possibility of contamination to that drinking-water supply.

The National Party has repeatedly said we believe that New Zealanders who live in rural or remote parts of the country accept the risk that living in those parts of the country carries with it. We could use the example of trampers. They tramp in all manner of places, and carry with them little pills, or whatever, to make sure the water they drink is treated prior to drinking. In other words, they are mitigating the risk for themselves. We just say that New Zealanders do not mind sorting out how to look after themselves, but they are thoroughly sick of nanny State—the Labour-led Government—telling them that it knows better how to look after them.

Included in the significant improvements in the bill is that suppliers who are implementing an approved public health risk-management plan will be deemed to comply with the requirement to take all practicable steps to comply with the drinking-water standards. I have already touched on the longer time frames that align with the Local Government Act 2002, and the creation of the new category of drinking-water supply that gets around the supply to stock of drinking water, called the rural agricultural drinking-water supply. There are different and more flexible obligations in that section.

The select committee addressed other things. There were concerns about back-flow regulation, which would impair the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems. That has been addressed in the bill, as well. There are now clearer definitions of procedures for consultation on the adoption of the new drinking-water standards, and a clearer definition of a temporary drinking-water supply. It would be fair to say that in the initial reading of the bill many of the submitters took one look at it and thought: “What a bureaucratic minefield! What a huge amount of cost for us!”. We have managed to assuage some of those concerns, but, despite all this, Local Government New Zealand remains principally opposed to this bill. We should heed its concerns. We know that the chairperson, Basil Morrison, thinks this may well cost over $800 million.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.