Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’m pleased to speak to the second reading of this bill, because it is an important step in the ongoing improvements to the framework for drinking-water safety in New Zealand. I want to thank everyone who made a submission on this bill, including those who came to speak to the Health Committee in person. I also want to thank the members of the Health Committee—including, in particular, chair Louisa Wall—for their work, and for their thorough consideration of the bill and the 30 submissions that were made on it. It is pleasing, as Minister, to see the bill returned to the House with a unanimous report from the Health Committee.

As the House will recall, in August 2016 there was a drinking-water contamination incident in Havelock North. Following that incident and the disabling of people and the illnesses that it caused, the Government launched an inquiry into Havelock North’s drinking water. The inquiry recommended a suite of changes, subsequently, to the current regulatory framework for drinking water. This bill draws on some of the recommendations of the inquiry, with a view to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Part 2A of the Health Act. The bill is a part of interim changes to drinking-water rules in anticipation of the introduction of a new regulatory framework for drinking water, and that’s currently being developed in the context of the Three Waters Review.

A large majority of submitters, I’m told, endorsed the bill and generally expressed support for its provisions. However, some qualified their support by noting that further legislative change is in the pipeline. As an example I’ve been given, there was overwhelming support from submissions for clause 10, which amends the powers of drinking-water assessors and designated officers. There has been some confusion among people performing official functions under Part 2A of the Act; this clause clarifies the relationships between the drinking-water specific powers in section 69ZP and the Health Act’s general powers of entry and inspection provided for in sections 128 and 128A. There was clear support from submissions for clause 4, which deletes unnecessary references to the operator of ports and airports. This amendment is seen as a tidying up of Part 2A of the Health Act.

Some concerns were raised regarding clause 7, which removes examples of reasonable steps suppliers must take to contribute to the protection of water sources. Some submitters were concerned that if the examples were repealed it would leave staff working in the front line with little certainty as to whether a drinking-water supplier had taken reasonable steps. The submission stressed that if the section was repealed, the publishing of guidelines to aid staff as to what amounts to reasonable steps should be developed without delay. There were multiple concerns raised regarding clause 9(4), which removes the requirement for accreditation of drinking-water assessors. These concerns were largely about ensuring that systems for quality assurance are maintained in drinking-water management. Submitters suggested that if the requirement for accreditation of drinking-water assessors is removed, a national quality management framework should be developed and implemented in its place.

After considering the bill and the submissions, the Health Committee did recommend eight changes to the bill. The first amendment concerns section 69H, “All practicable steps”. That section contains various elements that must be considered when determining whether or not a step is practicable under the circumstances, and some submissions expressed concern noting that, in its current construction, section 69H gives higher priority to the availability and affordability of steps than to the protection of public health. The amendment rebalances the criteria so that consideration of public health is given the same priority as the availability and affordability of steps to be taken. I welcome that suggestion from the select committee. In addition, at present a person who wishes to rely on unaffordability as a reason for a step not being practicable need only claim that it’s not affordable. The Health Committee agreed with a submitter that the provision also needs amendment and recommends that the provision of evidence be a requirement for any supplier who wishes to rely on unaffordability. That has the effect of requiring that the drinking-water supplier justify to the drinking-water assessor why it is not practicable that they should take a particular step.

Other amendments would change sections 69S and 69V, which outline a drinking-water supplier’s duty to take all practical steps to provide an adequate supply and to comply with the drinking-water standards. The committee recommends removing the references to all practicable steps so that the duty is simply to provide an adequate supply and to comply with the drinking-water standards. This makes the upfront nature of the duties clearer and is consistent with the findings of the Havelock North inquiry. While the headline duties on suppliers will be clearer, the defence available to them in section 69ZZS will remain unchanged.

A further amendment to section 69V in new clause 7A(3) relates to the implementation of water safety plans. At present, the legislation can be read that to comply with the drinking-water standards, suppliers need only implement their water safety plan to their own satisfaction. This issue was raised during the submission process as lacking appropriate scrutiny, and the Health Committee recommends that section 69V(2) is amended so that implementation of the water safety plan must be to the satisfaction of the drinking-water assessor.

Another amendment proposes strengthening the provision of water safety plans. At present, in development of a water safety plan, a supplier must identify the critical control points of their supply. This has caused challenges in the enforcement of Part 2A of the Health Act and the drinking-water standards as there is no explicit requirement that suppliers must actively manage critical control points. This amendment clarifies this requirement, stating that they must manage and control those critical control points as well as identifying them.

The final amendment relates to the notification of changes to the drinking-water standards. Section 69P requires that the Minister of Health ensures that there has been adequate consultation as well as notice before amending or adopting new drinking-water standards. Currently, section 69P(1) states that adequate and appropriate notice of the intention to issue, adopt, or amend the drinking-water standards must be published in a daily newspaper in each of the cities of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. The Health Committee recommends updating the public notice provisions by allowing publication on an internet site.

So in conclusion, the vast majority of those who submitted supported the intention of the bill, recognising that these are relatively minor improvements to the current legislative framework. Many of the suggestions made during the submissions process were constructive and have contributed directly to the strengthening of the bill. The bill as reported back from the committee will further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Part 2A of the Health Act and, in so doing, help to promote the safety of New Zealand’s drinking water.

Can I thank again the committee for the constructive way they have engaged in these very technical issues surrounding drinking water. I think that the bill itself, with the changes also around consultation—progressing it through the House is something that everyone will agree with, because it is common sense and it’s good to have a bill going through which strengthens our regime and has widespread agreement. We cannot continue in a situation where tens of thousands of New Zealanders every year are getting sick by preventable means, without strengthening our drinking-water regulation. I want to thank again members from both sides of the House on the committee for the constructive role they have played in making sure this legislation progresses.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your indulgence, I just want to start a little bit further away from the scope of the bill and bring my point back to it. Today and tomorrow, the annual Aspiring Leaders Forum is being hosted here at Parliament, and I have just come from a forum with my parliamentary colleagues Chlöe Swarbrick and Jan Tinetti. A number of the questions that were asked about us and the way we go about our business seemed to indicate that there was a perpetually adversarial environment to this House and to its committees. We were at pains to point out to them that not only was that not the case in the engine room, the select committees, but also even in this place—that the one-minute sound bite on the TV isn’t actually how a lot of the business is done. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that probably at least half, if not the majority, of the bills that are passaged through the House in this term of Parliament have so far had the support of the majority, the overwhelming majority, of the parties. And so it is this afternoon, where we’ve had three bills where they’ve had unanimous or near unanimous support of all parties.

So it is with this one, because of course we all know of the very serious water contamination issues that emerged in Havelock North a couple of years ago. Indeed, the genesis of this was the inquiry that the previous Government commenced and which the present Government is picking up and implementing the recommendations for, and we certainly endorse both those recommendations as a whole and we will watch with interest when the Minister of Local Government brings back the proposals for how the Government intends to deliver the substantive recommendations of the Havelock North water inquiry.

But in the meantime we have this what I would call precedent or foundational piece of legislation that the Minister of Health has introduced and which we will continue to support because it is the right thing to do. It’s necessary and appropriate and it’s by no means anything like the substantive reforms that will be involved as a consequence of the contamination, but it is important to do.

I also want to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee that worked diligently under the very good chair, Louisa Wall, and the collegial way in which almost all of the business is done—but certainly on this issue—and also the submitters who came in. I’m not going to repeat the Minister’s descriptions, the very good descriptions, of the suggestions that came from the submitters, very smart suggestions, and which the select committee recommended changes to.

I will draw attention to a couple of the belts and braces issues that were referenced. The evidence of affordability, I think, is very important—to have some kind of scrutiny on those claims, and indeed there are other aspects of legislation that have that, not the least, I think, is section 31 or 32 of the Employment Relations Act, where affordability as a retort to a pay claim needs to have an evidence base. So it’s certainly by no means novel or new. Also, of course, I think the water safety plans are something that should be scrutinised by the assessor, not the supplier. Those, I think, are completely consistent with the policy intent and will actually improve the bill.

So with those short words, I’m very pleased to continue to support the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill at its second reading.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to get a call on this, the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

I just want to provide a bit of context, because we’re actually talking about the campylobacteriosis outbreak in Havelock North and the fact that of the 14,000 residents, 5,500—39 percent—were actually affected by the contamination of their water supply. That included 45 hospitalisations, three deaths, and, actually, there were others that suffered health complications, and it continues to affect them adversely. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation because it implements recommendations made to the Government inquiry into Havelock North’s drinking water.

I want to acknowledge the 30 submitters and the seven oral submitters and, like others today, I also want to acknowledge the work of our committee—incredibly collegial. Actually, this was a technical bill, but I think those eight changes, which have been acknowledged by Minister David Clark, are significant and actually have added tremendous value. I also want to acknowledge the officials who, I think, we have an incredibly constructive relationship with, and also congratulate the Minister on having a ministry that has dedicated staff who, like us, are all concerned about public health issues. Obviously, having a clean water supply is incredibly important.

A lot of the changes were to the philosophy of the whole approach to ensuring we have a safe water supply, and, in fact, the whole intention of this legislation is about the protection of public health. But embedded within the system, actually, were a lot of choices that suppliers could make, and that’s what I really want to focus on. They didn’t have to justify whether or not they did something. They could just say it was unaffordable, and they didn’t have to do it. So what this piece of legislation now has embedded in it is not only the creation of these water safety plans by the suppliers, but they have to, under this law, now have an implementation plan, and they can’t just say, “We haven’t done it because we can’t afford it.” That is now unacceptable. The assessors will sign off these safety water plans. There will be monitoring of the implementation of those safety water plans, and there will also be a requirement to highlight what they’re calling critical points in terms of those safety management plans, and they actually have to have plans to implement it, I guess, in the worst-case scenario.

So I think this is now an incredibly proactive piece of legislation that doesn’t just rely on suppliers having these plans and that we’re satisfied with the plans. It has to be beyond just having a plan. It actually has to be about the accountability of those plans being implemented and consistent monitoring, because at the heart of what we are trying to do is to guarantee to every single New Zealander that their drinking water is safe. We never want to see a repeat of what happened in Havelock North.

I acknowledge that this is the first step in an implementation regime and there will be another piece of legislation that comes to the House. I won’t speak for much longer. Everyone, have a great recess. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this, the second reading of the bill, which we will be supporting. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker, Louisa Wall, as a very capable and pleasant chair to work with. As you can see from the work that we’re getting through the Health Committee and the whole committee indeed, we are indeed a very functional and productive committee.

As has been mentioned, we had 30 submitters to this bill, and if I look to group them they would sit into groups of local government, district health boards, individuals, industry—we had the Master Plumbers—quality assessors, the International Accreditation New Zealand, and, indeed, iwi submit to us in the Health Committee. I took from it three main points, and I’ve formatted them as: what was the issue, what was it before, and what was it after the select committee came through?

I think the three issues for me, many of which the Minister has mentioned in his introduction, were: first of all, Section 69H, to take “all practical steps”. The issue here was giving the appropriate weighting to public health in the wording of the bill versus affordability and availability. Before, the statement was “having particular regard to availability and affordability”, which seemed to unduly weight that in favour of public health. So afterwards, the impact of what the committee had was to apply equal weighting to those three aspects: availability, affordability, and public health.

The second issue which resonated with me was the definition of drinking water. Before, it was commented that it’s very important to get the definition of this right, particularly the definition between potable and non-potable water—non-potable water being water used for flushing, for washing cars, for washing clothes. In fact, it was decided that that is a body of work in another piece of legislation and maybe not appropriate to this. So we did take on board what the submitters said, but, actually, it wouldn’t be applicable to this bill. So that’s going to come at another point in time.

I think the third issue that was raised that we looked at, that has a before and after moment, was around water safety plans. Before we applied ourselves to it, how the suppliers implemented the water safety plan was somewhat unqualified. It wasn’t clear that they were under any guidance or jurisdiction. With advice from submitters and officials and with the agreement of the select committee, the implementation of water safety plans now must be to the standard of the assessor.

I agree with what others have said. This may seem relatively dry, but it is very, very important when we think of what happened in Havelock North, and it’s these sorts of bills that actually have a real impact for a lot of people. So a very successful, I think, stage here, complete agreement by the committee, and I am looking forward to ongoing progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I will not take too much of the House’s time. I just want to rise and endorse the comments, in particular, of the Hon Michael Woodhouse when he highlighted the manner in which the committee went about its business in a very collegial manner. I’ve got to say that in my experience in the House this is not uncommon. I think we do need to sometimes just acknowledge that the select committees are the powerhouses of the work that gets done. And it’s work such as this select committee has done, chaired by the very able and capable Louisa Wall, that has highlighted and brought to the attention of the Minister the eight amendments that clearly made improvements to the bill, and that produced a piece of work that is going to enhance the wellbeing and the health of communities throughout New Zealand.

We—particularly those of us who have been on local government—will never forget the very difficult times that were endured in Havelock North, when Lawrence Yule was the mayor at that time. I think he might have been an MP, but he had been the mayor up there that prior to that. Over 5,000 people fell ill, and it resulted in the deaths of three people. It was an incident of great significance and concern, hence the inquiry and then, from that, the legislation that we are now progressing through the House.

I think we’re sometimes a little blasé. I know, when I’m out walking or running, I think nothing of dropping down into the Kaipatangata Stream on my climb up to the top of Mount Dick, putting my water bottle in, filling it up, and quenching my thirst. And when I come back down from Mount Dick, I fill up that water bottle again and carry on without so much as paying as any attention or mind to what might be in the stream further up from where I filled my bottle.

💬 SPEAKER: What about the people who take the water further downstream and you’ve put your hands in it?

Ha, ha! I think we do take for granted that we live pretty much in a safe country and, despite all of what we read in the papers about our dirty waterways—something that we aim to address—there are still places where we go and we can take our water. But it sometimes gives us a false sense of security. That we are, in this legislation, removing requirements for the Ministry of Health to consult for three years and Gazette changes for two years before making any changes to drinking-water standards, I guess, in itself says that the legislation was long overdue for a bit of a look-see and some amendments. Clarifying that water safety plans must include timetables to implement measures that mitigate risks to drinking water—it all seems rather common sense, all seems quite logical. It’s tragic that it has taken the deaths of three New Zealanders and over 5,000 people becoming ill to get us to focus our minds and our attention.

I’ve got to say, at home we have our own private water supply—rainwater off the roof. I said, in the first reading, that my partner, Christine, got ill in the first month of us living there. We went under the house and found that there was only one filter, and it was a filter that you’d normally find on a swimming pool, and it was certainly inadequate. Christine was sick for quite some time as a result. We installed a $2,500 filtration plant with a 20 micron filter, backed up with a 1 micron filter, backed up with ultraviolet, and I’ve got to tell you that rainwater filled it in such a way that’s absolutely pristine and beautifully soft. And Christine has not been sick once since then. That’s what we do, and we spend about $475 a year changing out filters and UV lamps, but that’s what we do for ourselves to ensure that our water quality on our lifestyle block is safe for our grandchildren when they visit, safe for our whānau, safe for our guests—anybody who comes to our home and who drinks. I’ve got to say, actually, that same water ends up being the water that we water our roses in our gardens with. So, even the gardens and the roses benefit from purified water.

I do know, when I was the Mayor of Carterton, that we often had discussions and debates about the quality of water, and we had to acknowledge that over half of the people in our district had their own private water supplies, and sometimes we worried. This legislation pertains to the public water supply, and I know the Minister has other work in progress, and we’ll look forward to progressing that through the House. But I’ll just conclude by congratulating the committee on excellent work, on very constructive amendments that have added to the quality of the legislation, and congratulate them particularly in the very collegial way in which they have worked through this legislation in committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, a bill that has been before the Health Committee, but before my time. I’ve read the background to it and some of the 30 submissions that were received. This does seem a very sensible response to the 2016 outbreak of the contamination in Havelock North, and as other speakers have mentioned, the health repercussions of not getting it right are too substantial to ignore. So I think the changes that are being considered about requiring water supplies to be treated—perhaps not to the same level of detail, as the previous speaker has done, to benefit his roses. But I think that the requirements for a residual disinfectant in the reticulation, making compliance with drinking-water standards mandatory—sensible measure—and establishing a dedicated drinking-water regulator as well as creating aggregated dedicated water supplies are all very sensible, all very useful.

As other speakers have noted, I was around in an era when people were a little less careful. I was in Pētone a few weeks ago and noticed that people were still queuing with their bags and bottles to collect the pure water that comes through there on the main drag at Pētone.

💬 SPEAKER: Aquifer.

It’s an aquifer, and it is very popular, and a lot of people will only drink water from that. I was brought up in Tinakori Road, and there was a very similar aquifer that was there, but it was a very dangerous place to park and to stop and, eventually, it was closed for public safety reasons. But my own mother, may she rest in peace, thought that that was the best drinking-water in the world and that that was where we had to get all our drinking water. I have many fond memories of going down the road collecting it. We didn’t get sick—you know, they were different times—but I think that, with the measures that this bill is outlining, we can all be more confident about our drinking water.

As there’s more information that comes through around nitrate levels in water, around the sorts of things that can go wrong health-wise for people who drink too much water that is, if not contaminated, then it has too many of the wrong kind of minerals in it—that’s something that I think will be an emerging issue and something we need to think more about. But this is a very, I think, sensible and practical approach that other jurisdictions and local governments around the country can take note of.

This is a good bill, and I think it was such a disastrous situation and so concerning, and there were three fatalities in the Hawke’s Bay situation. I went up there at the time and there was a general air of concern and worry, and I think it is psychologically very damaging for people to think they can’t turn on the tap, drink the water. Boiling it for a while is all very well, but the contamination and the safety of our water is something that New Zealanders come to expect, count on, and so they should. So I think it’s a very sensible bill, and I commend the Health Committee for the good work that they’ve done on this. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I’m pleased to speak in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. Unlike Minister Mark, I’m much more careful now when I’m out walking and taking water from streams, because, with the major intensification in the agricultural sector, you don’t always know what is happening up catchment and what has actually got into waterways. That is a really sad situation, because I think, maybe 20 years ago, it was the ability of everyone who was out in the back country just to be able to stoop at a stream and drink the water there. What this bill is is only a small part of the Government’s overall programme in improving fresh water.

I live in Christchurch, and it is interesting there. We’ve got the best-tasting water in New Zealand, I’d argue, because it comes from an aquifer.

💬 SPEAKER: The member is misleading the House!

Ha, ha! I’d be glad of that. It is delicious water, but just down the road from me, on the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River, there is a spring on the other side of the river. Always there is a car stopped there taking water from just a tap that the private landowner provides from a well on their property. That intrigues me—because the Christchurch City Council has a very sophisticated water-supply system—that people still prefer to take water directly from a spring rather than from the reticulated supply. But what Havelock North has taught all of us, and everyone in the House is resolute, is that we must ensure that we never have an outbreak like that again, which caused so much sickness and contributed to the deaths of several people

The inquiry found that over 100,000 people every year are getting sick from drinking water, and that’s probably an underestimate because people don’t always report their symptoms. So this small bill goes some way to making some changes to improve the security of drinking-water supplies. But it is part of a much larger programme which involves establishing a regulator for drinking-water security—a central regulator—which ensures that the providers of drinking-water supplies do meet much stricter standards and ensures the safety of people turning on the tap and taking water from those supplies. I don’t think it does all of the things that the Hon Maggie Barry outlined. I think some of those are still to come in the Government’s changes.

Ensuring that there is compliance with the standards is a key part of the changes that are to come, but that’s only one part of ensuring safe drinking-water. A critical part is ensuring that the sources of drinking-water supplies are protected. That’s protecting not only the volume of water that can be allocated for drinking water—for potable water—but also the quality of the water and ensuring that regional councils really step up to better protect sources of supply by stronger controls on land use in the catchments for those water supplies. That’s work that Minister Parker is leading as part of the Essential Freshwater programme: the stronger national policy statement on fresh water, and the requirement that councils actually implement in their plans the bottom lines in that national policy statement in a much more expeditious way than they have done to date. Because it’s protecting not only the source but also ensuring that the actual supply is really well managed that are the keys to ensuring that drinking water is safe for everyone.

So this is a small bill. It’s been widely supported in submissions, but it is making those changes more quickly so that there isn’t such a long time required for consultation before standards are improved. So it is a step along the way. There is much more work to come that Minister Mahuta, Minister Clark, and Minister Parker are leading as part of the joined-up thinking by this Government to protect and enhance our freshwater and to progressively move to a situation where, like Minister Mark, you can take water from local streams, because you can be assured of its quality. We can’t be at the moment. That is a tragedy, but we are working to change that. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, sir. I’ll take a very short call on this, partly because I wasn’t a member of the select committee that considered this bill and heard the submissions, the Health Committee, and partly because I have a group of aspiring leaders in my office at the moment who are waiting for me to return. So I will just simply—

💬 Angie Warren-Clark: Give them a wave.

Ha, ha! Well, I think I’ve just given them what’s called a shout-out, Ms Warren-Clark, and I’m sure that that will suffice.

But this is a serious issue, and it’s hard to imagine any member of this House not taking very seriously the responsibility that we all feel for ensuring that the legislative framework and the different authorities that are responsible for ensuring our drinking water is not only potable but of a high standard—that is a responsibility that must be accepted, and, of course, it falls for the local authorities to ensure that that is delivered, but there’s also the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and Department of Internal Affairs. So it’s a multifaceted thing that we all have a strong interest in.

I am pleased to hear that the submissions were supportive of this particular measure, and I’m also pleased that there is cross-party support in the House for it, because I think that sort of certainty is needed to ensure that all the authorities with the responsibility know that there will be continuity in the decisions that are made. So I commend those who have worked on this particular bill. I thank those who took the trouble to make submissions on it, and particularly the members of the Health Committee. Although I’m not a permanent member of that committee, I quite often do get subbed on because I’m on National’s health caucus team. I welcome the passage of this second reading as anticipated in a few moments.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a short call from me just to support the comments that have been made by all the speakers already, in terms of this being the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. Phrases like “this is a very serious matter and therefore a very serious piece of work” I certainly endorse, and I remember my time in local government and this coming to the forefront in terms of how can this actually happen in this day in Aotearoa New Zealand.

I’m not a member of the Health Committee, but it was good to see that there were 30 submissions and people have taken seriously the report done and those recommendations from the Health Committee that came through. It’s astonishing, really, when you look at some of the things that should’ve been there already—we probably thought we didn’t need them, but, certainly, the changes recommended have now been endorsed.

I was thinking, too, that the personal cost of this cannot happen again. I think the work that’s been undertaken and has been put forward in this bill will correct what needs to be correct, and, hopefully, we don’t see it happen anywhere else in New Zealand. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take just a very brief call on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill at the second reading. As my colleagues have traversed already, it’s a short but very important bill which makes a number of technical changes to the Health Act to allow some of the big changes that will be coming down the pipeline, no doubt, after the Havelock North inquiry.

This is actually a bill that’s a little bit close to my heart. Most of these points have already been made, so I’ll just take a couple of minutes to tell you a very short story about my younger brother, who, when he was two and I was just over three, nearly died from a water-borne illness. He was in hospital for a long time, and it was very touch and go and it was probably the darkest days for my family. Although the water he was drinking was directly out of a dam, which he shouldn’t have been doing but no one was watching him at that point, it was a pretty horrific time for my family.

This outbreak in Havelock North was truly awful, and as many speakers have said, we can never allow this to happen again. This bill is just the first of a number of changes that will go along the way to making sure that doesn’t happen.

I wasn’t part of the select committee that looked at this bill, the Health Committee, so I’ve been following it and I’ve read the report. I see that there were 30 submissions on the bill and they’ve recommended some quite good changes and that the committee worked very well together in making those changes. A lot of those changes were about the communication, essentially. The committee agreed that the current ability for water suppliers to implement their water safety plans lacked sufficient scrutiny, and the committee recommended inserting a new clause to provide for a drinking-water assessor to scrutinise water safety plans.

The bill also removes requirements for the Ministry of Health to consult for three years and Gazette changes for two years prior to making any changes to water standards. The committee also recommended updating rather historic requirements for changes to water standards to be publicly notified. One provision in the Act requires any changes to the standards to be advertised in the daily newspaper in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin. The committee recommended that this needed to be changed and instead replaced with the water standards to be advertised online, which is very sensible, of course.

Look, these are all very good, necessary changes, and I commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House and the committee for its scrutiny and its recommendations. I do look forward to seeing the more comprehensive reforms that we know are going to come off the back of this, and I recommend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker, of speaking on such an important bill for the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. It was a really big issue at the time, and I clearly remember how much concern there was when the Havelock North issue broke in New Zealand. It was a scare that went right through New Zealand, because it really shook our confidence in the fact that our drinking-water quality, in a country that we think of as being a First World country, could be compromised to the point where someone would lose their life. It’s something that we potentially take for granted. So it is encouraging to see this bill taking on board all of those recommendations put forward to making sure that we do have healthy drinking-water here in New Zealand.

Some of the key changes that this bill will give effect to in the recommendations from the Government’s inquiry into the Havelock North drinking-water outbreak are really looking at expediting how we change and making sure that the checks and balances required in legislation can be done in a way that enables a quick response in those areas. It’s important to note, too, that as we go forward and we see increase of population, increasing demand on our resources, to make sure that we are operating in a way going forward that we can maintain good-quality drinking water, something that is so precious to us, in a way that meets a wide range of competing interests. This is where this bill is only part of a wider response that this Government is undertaking to make sure that water, no matter how it’s being used across the board in New Zealand, is managed well, and we’re doing that in a way that balances a wide range of interests.

But this really marks out how important it is to make sure that the water that we get out of our taps—that when we drink that, we can make sure that we are not going to make ourselves sick, and we want to make sure that right across New Zealand, no matter where you live, you can turn on the tap and make sure that the water that you give to your family is of a good quality.

Some of the key provisions that have come through the select committee process have taken into account some of the submissions that the Health Committee heard, and it was good to see some of those changes taking place. There was strong support for clause 4, which, basically, meant amending powers for drinking-water assessors and making sure that we didn’t have—like what happened in Havelock North—that three-year waiting period, which didn’t enable a quick response.

I do note that there were some concerns raised regarding clause 5, which concerns ensuring that the Minister adopt appropriate consultation for proposed change and that suppliers are given enough time to transition once a change has occurred. So that is important as well.

The policy content of the bill, if I can touch on that quickly, is that it really shows that these amendments, and the four that are so important, will enable that response to happen, should we ever be in situations like the one that we’ve seen in Havelock North. I do note, too, that there’s a wide variety of ways that people source water in New Zealand, and all are important.

Growing up in some parts of New Zealand—when I was growing up in rural New Zealand, I vividly remember the day my father cleaned out our water tank and found the remains of a dead possum. We’d been drinking that water for quite a few months. No one got sick, but it’s not a great feeling when you know that what you’ve been turning on from the tap hasn’t been particularly good, or good for immunity in the long run.

But we want to make sure that what we’re giving our kids is good quality, and we want to streamline the processes so if there are impurities in the water supply, if there are issues in terms of where our water is coming from, and the sources of where that water’s coming from is adequately protected, then when there’s a problem we can act quickly and make sure that no longer should we have New Zealanders fearful of what they’re putting into their bodies from a tap. We need to protect what is beautiful in New Zealand, what is a fresh, natural resource, and not take that for granted.

I commend the Minister for this piece of legislation, and I really look forward to the good work being done by Minister Parker and Minister Nanaia Mahuta in terms of the wider work on water quality that is happening in New Zealand. It’s long overdue, and I’m looking forward to seeing that come forward. So without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I take a brief call as the last speaker for the National Party on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. This is a watershed moment—pardon the pun, but it literally is, because it’s a turning point in terms of the health and the hygiene of our Aotearoa New Zealand water and the status of it.

Just reflecting on previous speakers this afternoon, I was one of those children from the 1960s through to the 1970s who also had the benefit of a rural community upbringing, and our water supply was, of course, either rainwater in the tank—and, yep, when it was cleared out, we found a dead possum or rat every now and then; we were pretty hardy and sturdy in those days—and also we used to go down to the river to cleanse, to bathe, to wash. Interestingly enough, for Māori, the word “wai”, water, is a significant word in terms of wairua—a cleansing element. Wairua is the spirit. Waiora, health—“wai-ora”—so the importance of the cleanliness, the cleansing, the purity of our waterways.

I now turn to the amendment itself in taking this brief call. The main provisions of this bill are that it removes “requirements for the Ministry of Health to consult for [the] 3 years and [the] gazette changes for two years” prior to “making any changes to [the] drinking-water standards”; it clarifies that “water safety plans must include timetables to implement measures that mitigate risks to the drinking water”, streamlines “processes for the appointment of drinking-water assessors”, and removes “unnecessary references to designated ports and airports.”

In keeping this brief, I just turn again to reflect on some fond memories as a child, and I reference, Minister Mark, your recollections of going to water sources to fill your bottle. My memories are going down to the Hautapu River in Ōtaihape, which was the source for many of us. There was a waterfall there. We would go down there, we would bathe, we would wash, we would cleanse, but we would take water from further up the river. Regrettably, in my childhood, in the 60s and 70s, we couldn’t do that in the Whanganui River; it was polluted. But now it’s a different story.

It just turns my mind, in closing, about who does what under this amendment bill in terms of the authorities. The local councils are responsible for supplying healthy drinking-water to local residents, and we’ve heard from speakers in the House earlier this afternoon about the watershed moment in terms of the disastrous outbreak in 2016. Who does what? The Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for the legislation within which local governments operate, and when it comes to drinking water, the Ministry of Health is to set the drinking-water quality standards and guidelines.

I will always reference from personal experience and the impact on my life, and in 2017, legislation was passed in this House called Te Awa Tupua—the Act in relation to the Whanganui River. Part of the cleansing and essence of who we are as Whanganui is our waterways and the importance of keeping that as pure as can possibly be. So that hearkens back—we have our other authorities and our Te Awa Tupua authorities in terms of Whanganui water and the Whanganui River. It’s not to be overlooked in terms of the health and safety of our waterways. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the last member speaking on behalf of the Government around this bill, the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, which substantively tidies up—and is very technical in its essence—some significant factors that were missing and previously found in our water reporting. This is another opportunity tonight to commend my Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark, for getting on with a very important aspect of change. Infrastructure is really important, and this is part of the building blocks of infrastructure change. When we have systems in place that support good and healthy water, then through that so continues to flow wellbeing.

I’d also like to, as other members have, stand and talk for a small amount about the collegiality of our Health Committee. We all agreed on the future direction and where we needed to go. We listened and were very engaged with the seven submitters but the 30 submissions that came in. In fact, while it was quite technical, it was quite fascinating to learn what water assessors actually do, and we did talk about the workforce and the development of that workforce.

It’s so very important that we get our water right. As we have heard, there has been a significant number of people—a significant number of people—39 percent, I recall Louisa Wall, our chairperson, saying, in terms of being affected in that population. Over 5,000 people were affected by gastro in that community. Some deaths—three deaths—have occurred. I guess until this event occurred, we all just assumed that our water system was working well. We all just assumed, based on the plans that were in place, that this would work well. Well, by looking at the legislation, we’ve discovered that, actually, it was pretty slow-moving. It was pretty difficult to get action. Some of the things that were noticed were that it all had to be gazetted as opposed to being notified by email, etc. So there was a whole process that needed to really change.

But water, being so important to us, I was reminded of a trip—and I’m quite pleased you’re in the House tonight, sir—recently I was on a trip with yourself, on a Speaker’s delegation to Ethiopia and Rwanda and Turkey, and it is amazing how we, as a country, take for granted what clean water is like. So the very wonderful Wendy Hart organised that trip for us, and part of her pastoral care of us was to ensure that we were well. So we had, when we went to Ethiopia, a full and clear set of rules around what we could and couldn’t do, and one of the things was we, of course, had to drink bottled water in Ethiopia, and that included to brush our teeth. So it wasn’t only just for drinking, but it was for bathing as well.

Now, Mr Speaker, you and I are aware that things did not go that well for me, and in fact—

💬 Marama Davidson: I heard!

Ha, ha!—sir, there was an incident on a plane and a bag. So this is the kind of legislation that is quite dear to my heart—

💬 SPEAKER: The member should make it clear her mouth was involved.

Sorry, yes—yes. There was a paper bag and I was, unfortunately, sick into that bag. Ha, ha! I continued to be sick for quite some time. But while everyone thinks that’s obviously very funny, I’m a hearty and well woman, and I could cope with that. However, the kind of incidents and the likes of Havelock North—the people that we did lose were, perhaps, vulnerable health-wise. As a consequence, it was brought home to me that absolutely we expect in this country to have a good water system. This bill has, essentially, created part of the aspects of doing that to ensure that we have water safety plans, to ensure assessors and that there’s consultation. All of those things are in this bill, which is absolutely—while I say it’s not as spectacular as being sick into an air bag—it is most definitely part of the building blocks that we appreciate.

So having just told whoever’s watching television tonight and this House about my incident in Ethiopia, I would just like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.