Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

I’m delighted to speak to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, which has had support across the House through its readings thus far. It is a sensible bill, born out of a response to the outbreak of acute gastroenteritis in Havelock North in August 2016. This bill, importantly, removes specific periods from consultation as a requirement under the law. It still requires that reasonable consultation take place, but it does no longer specify that that should be over a long period of time, as it has been a barrier to keeping standards up to date. It’s also true that we expect the standards now to be set more frequently.

The water safety plans will continue to be a key element of the framework for assuring the safety of drinking water, and now we will require suppliers to manage and control critical points in their supply. That will now be an explicit requirement rather than, as it was previously, an implicit requirement. Also, this bill will remove the defence of a reasonable—sorry, I must get the legal language right. All practicable steps to prevent the commission of certain offences and, in particular, availability and affordability have been given precedence over the nature and severity of harm in terms of the criteria for whether action was required.

I think the public will agree, as this House seems to be in agreement, that the provision of safe drinking-water is incredibly important for New Zealanders. The Havelock North report estimated that around 100,000 New Zealanders every year are getting sick from preventable illnesses as a result of poor water. Whatever that number actually is, we would all agree that it is too many and that if we can prevent people getting sick, being killed, or, indeed, suffering lifelong disability through ensuring that we have a safe provision of drinking water through bringing this Act up to date, then we should proceed with that, and indeed, that is what this bill does. I recommend it to the House and I look forward to the ongoing support of members.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In what I hope will be a short call in a short committee stage on this bill, I just want to confirm with the Minister in the chair, Dr David Clark, that there are no amendments to the bill as it was when it passed its second reading and there are no Supplementary Order Papers to consider. I’m getting some shakes from the officials, in which case this should be a fairly perfunctory process, because the Health Committee canvassed in the second reading of this bill the quite sensible changes that had been recommended and passed unanimously, I think, across the House. But I would want to just reconfirm my party’s support for this as the first stage of, indeed, a very comprehensive response to the Havelock North water contamination inquiry, and it’s not for the Minister of Health to be bringing substantive changes to that. It’s, I think, the Minister of Local Government, but we are very interested in knowing what progress is being made in that respect. But, suffice it to say, at least in Part 1, we support and confirm the changes that were made in select committee in this committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an important bill, and what I’d just like to focus on is clauses 5 and 6 within Part 1, because what this does is it allows us to implement some of the changes recommended by the Havelock North inquiry in a more speedy manner. Previously, the Minister of Health was required to consult on any changes to these drinking-water standards, but to take a period of at least three years to do that. So what this does is it retains that requirement that the Minister does consult on these standards, but it removes the requirement that that occurs over a three-year period. I think that’s really important because with advances in technology and other urgent matters, it’s important for us to be able to change these standards in a flexible manner.

For those, though, who were concerned that this may not result in adequate consultation, there are still a number of provisions there. One is that consultation must occur, and the second aspect is that these are still disallowable instruments. So if there are any issues with those regulations by the Regulations Review Committee, they can, potentially, be disallowed by the House. But the other aspect that makes it more speedy is that in terms of clause 6. Where previously the drinking-water standards had to come into force at least two years after the date of publication in the relevant Gazette, what this does is it changes that to 28 days. So, again, it is allowing a much more timely process for that to happen.

The other thing that it does in clause 5 is it updates the notification of any changes. Previously, the Minister had to put notices in the newspapers of some of those cities—for example, Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington, and Dunedin. So for Invercargill, where I live, if there were any changes, there actually wasn’t any requirement that they would be notified in our area. What this does is it allows the Minister to put some notice on the internet so that people are aware of it more broadly, but it also specifies that notices are to be put into the relevant newspapers of the areas affected, and I think that gives you much more flexibility in terms of making sure that everybody is aware of what’s happening.

So just looking at those two particular clauses, what we’re doing is making sure that as changes come through in terms of drinking-water standards, we can do that in a much more flexible and a much more timely manner, which allows for changes in technology and allows us to get on and implement many of the changes that will come down the line as a result of the wider Three Waters Review. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a relatively simple question for the Minister of Health. It relates to clause 6 in Part 1 of the bill, and to new section 69R specifically. We have in Christchurch an extraordinary situation where the city went through 15,000-odd earthquakes, with many of them—many, many of them—over 4.5 on the Richter scale, and in all that time, there were only four days where there were boil notices on the water as there was some uncertainty about whether or not the initial February 2011 earthquakes had caused any intrusion into the water supply that would be unwelcome. In the end, those restrictions were lifted. There were situations where some of the pipework was, effectively, creating little ponds or wells on the street side, and where there were pipes disconnected to the house, officials were saying, “It’s OK to take the clean water out of those holes because it’s in such a great state.” I know this because my street was one of those where that advice was given.

Can I just then ask, given that we have now got a panicky council down there—a group of spooked individuals who have decided that we need to chlorinate our water for the unlikely event that there may be some well head intrusion, even though they’ve got that massive evidence of security on those well heads, and while they are, commendably, doing some extra work to them, the city continues to be mass-dosed with chlorine. So what I’m asking is: given that that mass-dosing approach is very much the mantra of Water New Zealand, does this provision in here mean that at least 28 days after the publication of a notice in the Gazette, places like Christchurch will have to come up to a standard that will mean there must be chemicals added to their natural water supply?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great pleasure to rise and take a call on this stage of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to remind the committee of how we got here. We are looking specifically at a way to solve the terrible effects of the Havelock North disaster, in which thousands of people were affected and, I believe, a number of people lost their lives. So it’s really important that we look at the infrastructure, and I guess the question is—at the time, I understand, the member Lawrence Yule was the mayor of the community, so he would know, and hence why, across the other side of the Chamber, they are very keen to see this—the effects on that community and what actually happened. So it would be pretty awful for him to have had that experience, but also we’re here fixing it, aren’t we?

I’d like to speak on section 69H, in clause 4A. I’d like to talk about taking “all practicable steps”. So what, essentially, has happened—and I’d like to ask the Minister in the chair, Dr David Clark, whether he’d like to expand upon this, but what I’ll do is read through the legislation as it currently is and then ask the questions. So, essentially, this part is about the person having to take all practical steps “to achieve that result that it is reasonably practicable to take in the circumstances”, but then they need to take into account the following things, and in weighing up. So this is where people have previously said, “Yes, we’re aware that we need to do this but, sorry, it was too expensive.” or “We can’t do it.” So the test becomes the nature and severity of the harm that may be suffered if the result is not achieved.

So what is the effect of not acting—“(b) the current state of knowledge about the likelihood that harm of that nature and severity will be suffered if the result is not achieved;” Now, the reason I say that that particular one is important is that we know of risks that sit in different communities. These local governments are aware, I’m certain, so therefore they need to be taking into account the likelihood of that harm—the nature and the severity. I’m sure, if we reflect on Havelock North, there was a clear discovery upon this system failing, that this is a really severe response, and I’m sure from now on there will not be, I guess, a casual, “Oh, yes, well, we must look into that at some time.” “(c) the current state of knowledge about harm of that nature;”—so these are all added too—“and (d) the current state of knowledge about the means available to achieve the result, and about the likely efficacy of each; and (3) their availability;”—and then the final one—“and (f) their affordability, in light of the person’s financial position.”

And I really like what has happened in this further part, which says, OK, so we look at the test of affordability but we don’t just say that the person can’t afford it, and therefore it doesn’t happen; we actually put in place in this piece of legislation the test around what it is so that if they can’t afford to do this act, then they must provide full and complete records of their financial position and they must, as soon as practicable, not more than 28 days, produce evidence and the step-by-step process they have gone through in order to say that they cannot afford this change. So I would just like it—I’m about to finish my call—if the Minister is able to speak to that and the reason as to why we were very clearly putting this test in place around affordability. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to echo some of the comments that my colleague Angie Warren-Clark has been making, just sheeting home the importance of some of these clauses in Part 1 of this bill because of what happened under the previous Government in terms of just highlighting the lack of monitoring and the lack of oversight and, I suspect, the undue influence that affordability had when we’re looking at weighing up what’s affordable versus the basic safety concerns for our community. What this inquiry into what happened in Havelock North did was raise some serious concerns about the way that our drinking-water systems had been managed over that last decade. It had a huge impact on the local community there, because with that outbreak of campylobacter, around 5,500 of the town’s 14,000 residents were affected and about 45 were subsequently hospitalised, and it may have contributed to four deaths. So getting this right is crucially, crucially important, and this is a Government that’s really keen to make sure that this happens.

So, when we look at clause 4A, what we’re looking at here is making sure that what we’re doing is—when we’re taking “all practicable steps”, how it should be interpreted. Under the previous Act, what it was saying was that there was a big emphasis on availability and affordability of any steps that could be taken. So that was given a much higher emphasis than all the other factors that needed to be taken into account, and, as my colleague Angie Warren-Clark was saying, what this bill does is actually put a lot of those factors back on a more equal footing, because what it means is that the public health aspects are emphasised as equally.

So what the changes that we’re adding in mean is that in addition to looking at things like affordability and availability, we need to look at the nature and severity of the harm that may be suffered as a result of not doing some steps. It also needs to take into account the current state of knowledge about the likelihood of that harm and the nature and severity that will be suffered as a result of it not being achieved. I think what is absolutely important here is that we, basically, take steps to protect public health. That is crucial in weighing up what we need to be doing in terms of practicable steps.

I think the other thing that is really important in this particular part of the bill is looking at what people can say in terms of—a “get out of jail free” clause, almost—affordability. Previously, they could just say that it wasn’t affordable, and there was not really much further detail around that. But what now is required, with this bill, is that if you’re saying that you can’t take steps because of affordability, then you need to take a full and complete record of that person’s financial position so that you can actually get an assessment of what that position is in terms of affordability, and then, as soon as practicable, not more than 28 days after being required to do so by a drinking-water assessor, produce evidence that the steps are not affordable—including a copy of those records—and justify to the assessor or the officer why it’s not practicable to take those steps.

What that means is you need to have much stronger evidence that that is not affordable, because what we’re talking here is protecting the public health. I think that that’s something that—as we’ve seen as a result of this Havelock North inquiry—was not happening under the previous Government, and it’s something that our Government is very, very keen to address. That’s just also emphasising why the subsequent clauses then talk about making sure that that can happen in a much more timely manner, in terms of some of the other changes, if we want to change those standards.

So I think those aspects are very, very important in terms of making sure that we protect the public health balance in this equation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to rise to speak to a number of the issues raised by learned members. The first issue I want to address is that raised by Mr Brownlee, who reflected on Part 1, clause 6 and the notification period. For the benefit of the House—it’s one sentence, I’ll just read it out—the new law would say: “Drinking-water standards (and any amendments to those standards) come into force on a day specified in a notice under section 69Q(1) that is at least 28 days after the date of publication of that notice in the Gazette.” Really, it is quite a simple clause that has no mystery, it has no secret agenda. It is merely specifying a period of notice. In fact, the bill doesn’t change at all what the standards will say, just the notice period. I think that’s probably the point Mr Brownlee is seeking clarification on. He raised a grand conspiracy theory about enforced chlorination and so on.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, will the standards—

He may rise to take another call to clarify if I’ve misunderstood him but, then again, he may be satisfied with the brevity and clarity of my answer. The issue here is that we do need to make sure that our standards are updated in a timely fashion, because when we’ve got a public health issue, when we’ve got people getting crook and we can prevent it, that is what we believe, on this side of the House, we should be doing. Indeed, this bill is being supported across the House—and I thank Mr Brownlee as the shadow Leader of the House for his party’s support of the bill. I think it is important that we can react in a timely fashion when there are public health outbreaks, and that we can change standards if evidence comes that suggests we need to do things in a different way.

I just want to give one example, which is around chicken. New Zealanders often, in the past, have gotten sick as a result of eating poorly cooked or prepared chicken, and there’s been some evidence around public health risks of chickens that haven’t been appropriately looked after through the food preparation process. I know that I reflect when I talk with other people—often if they’ve got a tummy bug they think, “Have I eaten something bad? Have I eaten something wrong? Have I inadvertently, at a pot luck dinner or at a late night takeaway, partaken of something that’s made me crook?”

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: Why was he looking at me?

The first thing, often, that people’s minds go to—no reflection on the member Mr Faafoi when I talk about chicken. The issue is about food safety; this is about safety of the things we are putting in our bodies. I think, as New Zealanders, we are very well aware of the risks of food but, historically, we have been less aware of the risks of water. The Havelock North report brought this very sharply into focus and said, actually—what is clear in Havelock North is that even though, nominally, that water met the existing standard and had passed a recent test, it clearly was not safe. It was not safe water. People got sick, they were unwell, some people potentially lost their lives—there are deaths connected to that outbreak, four deaths. Also, people have suffered from disability as a result. We, no matter who’s in Government, need to address this issue because it is a matter of public safety and public health.

So that is what we’re doing here in terms of changing the consultation period, is making sure that we can put changes in place in a timely way but still with an appropriate consultation period. It was deemed that the previous periods listed in the legislation were unnecessarily long. They were focused from a past era. Indeed, when the legislation was brought into play in its most recent form, under the last Labour Government, it was world-leading. But, of course, time has elapsed since then and we now have these examples of people getting ill.

One of the other things that becomes clear in the Havelock North report, in one of the appendices, is that since the Havelock North outbreak and before the publication of the report, there were dozens and dozens of reports of bad water throughout New Zealand, in our newspapers, in the media, and so on. But, as a country, we don’t seem to be joining those dots; we don’t seem to recognise that this is actually a systemic problem. We have not had the necessary standards in place. We haven’t updated our water systems standards in the way that overseas jurisdictions have. As I say, when the last Labour Government put this legislation in place, it was world-leading. Now we recognise that these standards need updating, because the world has moved on. There are higher water standards in Europe, for example. People face great fines if they don’t implement water standards that ensure the safety of the population.

The other interesting thing in all of this, of course, is that we want this to be true across the country but it needs to be affordably so, because all of us who live in the regions want to be safe no matter where we travel. Those of us who live in cities want to be safe when we drink the water in a small provincial town. Those of us in small provincial towns want safe water when we go to cities. We need standards that are acceptable, that are widely consulted on, and that are put in place in a timely fashion.

I want to address the point raised by Angie Warren-Clark and Dr Liz Craig. Both of them raised the issue of affordability. Under section 69H(3)(b) of the Act at present, a person who wishes to use affordability as a reason for a step not being practicable only needs to tell a drinking-water assessor or designated officer that it is not affordable. That is prioritised over other reasons for upgrading the water that’s provided. The select committee itself recommended replacing that section to require a person who wants to use unaffordability as a reason for not undertaking a step to actually provide evidence showing that the step is not affordable and to justify why it is not practicable to take the step. So there’s a new test proposed.

I haven’t as yet and I do wish to thank the select committee for their work on this, because the bill has come back to the House with some modest but useful changes, including making sure that the priority across those different tests that come into force is taken away so that affordability is no longer a trump card that can be pulled out. People actually have to demonstrate that this is an unreasonable thing to have to do to upgrade the water, because for the simple reason that we want to ensure that our water is of quite high quality. We don’t want to give people a place to hide when it’s not reasonable to continue to deliver poor quality water.

So I think that addresses the two issues that have been raised so far. If it hasn’t, I expect members will raise further concerns or points of clarification. But the important thing to stress in all of this is that this is largely process we’re talking about here. This is about making sure—

💬 Hon Aupito William Sio: I just want to know who created the mess.

—and process is important—I hear the member. Process is important to make sure that we’re doing this in a way that actually involves proper consultation but is not unnecessarily hindered by an arbitrary, slow time frame that would mean people might continue to get ill, when we should be addressing the water standards and updating them so that they get to the world’s best practice and ensure the safety of our citizens.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’d like to take a point of order first before I offer my thoughts about section 69H.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So you’re calling for a point of order?

Yes. I just want to seek some guidance from you. When I speak on 69H, I’m going to talk about the person being someone associated—enjoying authority, in a council, and I realise that the council that caused many of these problems was led by an Opposition member of Parliament. Can you give me some direction as to when I might end up offending Standing Order 120 by calling into question the failure of the people who landed us in this similar situation—why we’re having to tidy this up—without the person on the other side of the Chamber feeling that I’m violating Standing Order 120.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I think the Standing Orders are clear that all members are honourable, so therefore anything that addresses another member should be respectful, and the Standing Orders are very clear that we’re debating a piece of legislation in front of us. The committee of the whole House is the opportunity to debate the detail of the legislation. There have been a number of speeches made that traverse the context of the legislation and I have allowed those to go. But there comes a time when we stop talking context and we start talking details. So my suggestion to the member is that if he wants to address section 69H—we’ve had a number of speeches addressing that—and he has some new information that he wishes to traverse that is of a personal nature, he is respectful in that and sticks to the point.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon Shane Jones.

I want to assure the committee that I am not standing to impute anything improper or add to any sense of angst about the people who were associated with enabling or acquiescing with poor decision-making over a long period of time.

Section 69H is a test about practical ability. I want to direct the attention to section 69H(1)(c), (d), and (e) in clause 4A. I don’t want to run the risk of protracting this discussion, but I am very allergic to law being used to enable people to avoid making timely decisions, number one; number two, and to that law being used to expand either the body of information a decision maker feels he or she needs or the relevance of that situation. So I go to the current state of knowledge about harm of that nature.

I thoroughly support—and the party I’m a member of thoroughly supports—the efforts of our Minister of Health in relation to drinking-water improvements. I don’t rely on drinking water supplied by a local government entity where I live. I know, however, many people do—for example, in Kaitāia, and we’ve got some significant challenges there. I just want some reassurance that when we use the term “state of knowledge” in terms of the likelihood of the harm, how exhaustive is that test likely to be? Because other than a filter, I think, sitting somewhere in the spouting of my house, to date none of my guests or my mokopunas have suffered any inordinate illness by drinking the water off the roof of my house. What scope will there be for that classic common-sense approach, which I think is a credible part of engineering that has helped us achieve the infrastructure to date? That’s the first thing.

The second thing is when we use the words the “likely efficacy of each”—I make the point to the Minister that whilst supporting him one day, councils—well, there may actually not be as many water authorities in the future. Who knows, after the next election perhaps a more enlightened group of people will come to lead local government in some parts of New Zealand, but that’s another matter. I think that the notion that we’re going to test the efficacy—we need some reassurance from the Minister that, yes, health trumps all. But a number of our councils are working within an envelope where they don’t have endless amounts of pūtea. They don’t have endless reservoirs of either private capital—because this is provided as a public service. And I want to be assured that the officials advising the Government have taken a very—not a pragmatic—practical approach to how they’re defining “efficacy”.

Then, when we talk about availability, it would be useful to know whether the Minister conceives of “availability” being availability to a given water provider. In my case, I’m from the Tai Tokerau. We have a council called the Far North District Council, and the Far North District Council was previously led by Wayne Brown. He suffered the depredations of the audit department after the new incoming council mayor, Mr Carter—another friend of mine, facing tremendous competition in the upcoming election. But I would point out that for people like ourselves, availability means: what is available, what will pass the test of efficacy in terms of those isolated areas in New Zealand, and what knowledge do the long-term health officials genuinely believe is applicable for a number of these isolated rural councils? Or does the notion of availability and efficacy contemplate, in actual fact, in the future, the current providers of this essential service, i.e., water that won’t make our elderly and our young people ill, can be made available, and that there’s a suitable range of ways to deliver that service?

If I can just respond in a timely fashion to the questions that the Hon Shane Jones has raised. The first series of questions is related to the application of common sense to standards—if I can characterise them in that way. How will we ensure that when standards are set, the reach of the bureaucracy is not into people’s homes—perhaps with one water tank, an elderly couple on a fixed income? How will we ensure that any future water standards don’t impose unreasonable costs on those when any harm done would be to those people who are supplying their own water?—if I understand the member’s question correctly. I have some disappointing news for the member in that that question is not directly addressed in this legislation. But I have heartening news as well, which is that he’s part of a sensible, common-sense Government that plans carefully for the future and seeks to ensure that New Zealanders are supported with common-sense standards, and that there is not reach into insensible areas. We need to carefully balance affordability and availability, because there would be little point in shutting off a water supply that was keeping people healthy when there was no evidence that it was going to do them harm and it was certainly not going to do anyone else harm. That’s the balance that will be struck as we work our way through, I’m sure, water standards—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Sensible, Minister.

—over time. I thank the member for his kind words.

But this is the essence of it. This bill itself doesn’t change what the standards themselves can say, but it does affect things like the notice period and the consultation period to make sure that we’re doing the process parts of that correctly, to make sure that people do get to have a say when we are setting the standards. So that goes, in some way, to the member’s question, because if we didn’t have that consultation period, it would be quite likely, I think, that—or maybe not likely; maybe that’s an unfair aspersion to be casting on our fine bureaucrats in Wellington. But it would be possible that with the stroke of a pen, some change could be made that had unwitting consequences further down the track, and that’s why we have wider public consultation periods. It is really important that we actually get the wider view in case there’s something that’s happening out there that hasn’t been taken into account in what might be, theoretically, very, very high and mighty and correct thinking. I’m confident that the processes we’re setting in place with this bill will, indeed, ensure just that—that we do have a process that takes into account the different factors and the different principles but that has a reasonable consultation period for dealing with the questions that are at hand.

In terms of efficacy, the question about whether poorer councils, in particular, might be disadvantaged by any changes in this legislation I think is something that, in my understanding, the Health Committee members have wrestled with carefully, and I’m sure Health Committee members, if they wish to, can speak to that in the debate—balancing those things to make sure that, you know, if somebody wants to claim that they can’t afford a change, they have to demonstrate that that’s true, but then it is a factor that that can be taken into account as standards are implemented. But, of course, the test, as the member says, that health should be the primary driver here to make sure that the drinking water is safe is one that we want to see applied. We do want to see evidence that we have safe water, that people aren’t going to get preventable illnesses when they simply could be prevented through taking action that is affordable to those who are supplying the water, because in New Zealand we regard ourselves as a First World country. We regard ourselves as a country that can afford to keep our citizens safe and healthy through the supply of good water.

I’ve no doubt that in the future, some investment will be required in our infrastructure, and how that’s done is a matter of policy and challenge for the Government, because we have—as the member points out—inherited a situation where the water standards are not up to scratch, where the situation was allowed to occur under the previous Government’s watch. I think all of us realise, without making this a political thing, that there’s a challenge we’ve inherited and a problem we’ve inherited that we’re determined to address to make sure that we have a sensible process in place to address those water standards and ensure New Zealanders have water that is safe to drink. Let’s not be alarmist about it. The water that people are drinking today is the same as they were drinking yesterday. But it is a problem we can fix and we must fix.

My goodness, that microphone turned on quickly. Thanks, Madam Chair. I just wanted to rise and take another call in relation to some of the conversations that we’ve had across the floor today. I think, for me, as a member of the Health Committee, we looked, absolutely, at the public health issue versus the affordability issue—which the Hon David Clark did mention. What we, essentially, had in our minds at that time is, actually, what a disaster this was—the failure of the drinking-water system, and, as a consequence, affordability. We gave the opportunity, within the amendments, to justify and explain whether they couldn’t afford, but public health was the key there. So there needed to be some very serious consideration as to why they couldn’t afford this financially. So that was the first thing.

I guess, the other aspect that I recalled—it’s been a while, so I did go back and have a read—the 28-day period that we amended this bill from was from a period of three years, and as my Minister has said, that was pretty much unworkable. It was pretty much in a time frame where, essentially, probably, faxes were still around—maybe not even faxes. But the old system was that something would be gazetted, and then, within three years, the wheels would grind and the infrastructure might possibly shift and there would be consultation. Now, what we very clearly saw in Havelock North was that we needed to act quickly. There needed to be a serious and immediate response, and the principal legislation was, very clearly, not cutting it. So we’ve had to come in and fix that up, which we’ve done.

The other matter that I wanted to talk about was, I guess, that it’s a shift in responsibility, although not particularly a shift in responsibility—that probably makes no sense.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, it doesn’t.

Ha, ha! Section 69V—so this is in regards to a water safety plan; a person or organisation needs to create a water safety plan depending on who the entity is. Previously, that public safety plan, basically, required the person who created the safety plan to report as to whether they were achieving the standards. So they would write their safety plan and then they’d say, “And yes, we’ve passed, thank you.” So what we’ve done is we’ve moved it from the author and moved it across from the drinking-water supplier—the person who supplies the water—across to the drinking-water assessor. That, essentially, gives an expert person the ability to come in and look at the safety plan and ensure with, I guess, objective eyes, essentially, that this safety plan is appropriate, and that the standards have been met.

So while it’s a relatively minor tweak, it’s actually quite significant in terms of just that extra level of accountability, because what we really didn’t want to see happening is that, you know, a water supplier says, “Oh yeah, we’re pretty good. We’re fine. We’ll be OK.”, and then we have a Havelock North happen. So we were really clear about just making that change to sort of support another fresh set of eyes looking over. And I think what that does is it’s fair but it’s also a safety mechanism being built into the Act just to ensure that in reality, these assessors, who are trained professionals, are getting a good look at the standards. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to follow up—I want to follow up on the contributions from my Labour colleague here and I’d invite observations from other select committee members.

It seems to me in this—and the Minister may like to take a call—amended section 69V, set out in clause 7A, “Duty to take all practicable steps to comply with drinking-water standards”, what’s possibly alarming is it contemplates that the suppliers are knowingly doing something either illegal or they are showing such a level of negligence that it approaches criminality. I can’t think of a single—because in order for me to agree to that, I would have to cast aspersions on the former mayor of the council who was meant to be doing their job, which is why we’re tidying this up in this House. Now, I don’t want to do that because you broadly outlined the envelope that I should operate within in terms of Standing Order 120.

If it’s not an allegation or the odour of criminality and wrongdoing, then why exactly, why exactly, and what is exactly the problem that this assessor—and I presume the assessor is someone with medical qualifications or, dare I say it, engineering qualifications, or it will be the end of the water supply system of New Zealand, if you’re relying completely on legal qualifications. We need people possessed of common sense who understand the practical application of what exactly the Minister has in mind with the creation of assessors. Is it a statutory position? Is it someone who is accredited to what I think is called the water authority, a bunch of grandees who aggregate together and advise Governments on how we can increase our ability to invest in infrastructure? So a little bit of clarity on that particular point.

Then upon that person, he or she having decided that the water supplier—for example, where my grandmother comes from, a little place called Te Kao. Now, Te Kao unwisely found itself in a situation where a chap from Maunganui was the provider of their water, and I think he didn’t get the easements in the correct fashion—in the correct fashion—and then that led to a collapse in their water supply.

But that aside, so what exactly, after the assessors come in—who’s going to pay the assessor? Is there a legal definition? I can’t see it in here; I’m presuming there is in some other labyrinthine piece of legislation. What level of reassuredness can be offered and what level of qualification and, in the event that they do decide in a place like Te Kao that the water is not quite up to muster, does that necessarily lead to legal action, which may require the supplier to be held accountable legally because their lapse is either of gross negligence or so careless that a simple assessor was able to trip them up? It’d be useful to get some clarification on such matters.

I thank the member Shane Jones because I think these are very important matters to have clarification on. The Health Act 1956 provides a defence where a water supplier has taken all practicable steps, as the member outlines, to prevent the commission of certain offences. Now, I’m advised that section 69H of the Act provides a definition of “all practicable steps”, and there are six components in the current definition with two—availability and affordability—given precedence over the other four, and the nature and severity of harm is one of the four lower-ranked criteria.

Now, clearly, where we have that ramping and where that is being used as a reason not to upgrade water supply and we have people being harmed—where we have evidence of harm such as we had at Havelock North—there is a situation that needs to be remedied. Now, this sits in balance with the point the member raised earlier around ensuring that common sense is applied here to make sure that we’re not imposing administrative burden or unnecessary tests on councils that can’t afford such tests if they apply—well, sorry, councils might not be the example, but small suppliers are examples of people supplying their own water to their own home, for example, where we know that that might just be a bridge too far. But where it is true that people are supplying a product—exactly as we do with food, where we have food safety standards to the public—we want assurance that the product that is being supplied is not going to make them ill.

So having a test which raises availability and affordability above the tests for the nature and severity of harm can lead to perverse outcomes, I would contest, and that is the reason I think that the select committee wrestled with this and made the recommendation that these things all be put on a level footing so that we actually have a good debate about these things. So we’re not saying that affordability and availability is not something that should be taken into account. Indeed it should, because there would be no point in turning off a water supply that supplied people healthy water and left them parched or unable to have a water supply basic to their health. But equally, when we have a supply that’s supplying a large number of people and is potentially going to cause widespread outbreak of illness, we don’t want that situation ever when there is something that can be done about that through the upgrading of the water to meet contemporary supply standards.

Now, at one level this seems really obvious, but it is incredibly important to get this right because we can see that the standards that we had in place and the situation we had in the lead-up to the Havelock North situation were ineffective. It was a tragedy. And, arguably, it was because the eye had been taken off the ball. When I became the Minister of Health, there were fewer than three people dedicated to water in the Ministry of Health. Now water is our most fundamental, I would argue—one of our most fundamental inputs into our lives. Without it we die. But the eye had been taken off the ball and that becomes obviously evident in the report. I mean, I have a copy here with me.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re not debating the report.

It’s a thick report. I was just going to make the point that I’m not going to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re actually debating the legislation. If we could get on to the legislation.

But to come back to the point: that report made absolutely clear the consequences of not having this legislation right. It lays bare the risks that we run by not getting the balance right between availability and severity of harm, and that is the historic situation we’ve inherited. As a Government we are committed to tackling those intergenerational issues, the big problems that we’ve inherited. This is another significant issue we’ve inherited as a Government and we are determined to make sure we get the balance right.

Now, I do want acknowledge that the Health Committee has played a really constructive role in refining this legislation, and I want to thank the members—the chair, Louisa Wall, and the other members of the committee, many of whom have spoken in this debate—for their contributions to ensuring that the wording is right in this legislation so that the test balances those different factors. The defence of all practicable steps needs to be borne out with a weighing up of availability, affordability, and the nature and severity of harm. So I thank the committee members and I hope that clarifies for the member.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to follow on in the line of questioning that has been led by the first citizen of the region, the father of the Provincial Growth Fund, and acknowledge the fact that we aren’t talking about health and safety; we are talking about the provision of safe water, which is, as the Minister has said, fundamental—a basic human right. I also note that the Health Committee have identified that this bill is a consequence of the Havelock North drinking-water contamination incident that occurred in August 2016. Now, I’m not a member of that select committee, so I do want to ask the Minister: what was the recommendation, if any, from that inquiry that has informed the amendments in this bill?

I then want to turn the Minister to section 69H, in clause 4A. It says “all practical steps, in relation to the achievement of any particular result by a person,” and then lists off (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). I am sort of wondering to myself about paragraph (f)—section 69H(1)(f): “their affordability, in light of the person’s financial position.” Affordability and safety appear to me to be contradictory terms, because if somebody who’s supplying the water believes it’s unaffordable, does that not put safety at risk? Is that not the purpose of making the amendments, because the contamination had something to do with people not being able to afford a proper safe drinking-water supply?

Why was it necessary that we have to stipulate (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), as opposed to the original bill? It seems to me that we’re really drilling down to the nitty-gritty, and that sends alarm bells in my mind because I have not seen the report that refers to the Havelock North contamination, but it appears that by us drilling to the details of those particular sections, something really bad must have occurred. I’m asking myself: who have we held responsible for the contamination?

I also refer the Minister to section 69P, in clause 5, “Minister must consult before issuing, adopting, or amending drinking-water standards”, where they’re replacing “in a daily newspaper in each of the cities of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch,” with “in accordance with subsection [(b)]” and then makes reference to internet site. I don’t know the area of Havelock North, but I have visited Smedley Station, around the Napier part. In some parts of that Smedley Station—wonderful facility as it is—there is no internet access, and it appears to me that in the countryside there is a reliance on radio communication where they cannot get online. I recognise that the internet site is sort of the way of the world at the moment, but not all parts of New Zealand will have access to the internet, and, in that part of the world, certainly, I thought radio station is a way that most country folks are communicating.

But it does concern me that there is silence on the other side when this is such a serious matter, and the fact that the Minister has been compelled to look in the detail of this. [Interruption] The fact that they’re shouting out is evidence itself that this is such a serious matter that we do need to take it seriously. My view is we need to hold somebody responsible for the contamination, and there’s nothing in this bill that suggests that somebody is being held responsible. If, indeed, it is a member of the Opposition, as has been suggested earlier, then we need to make that known. That’s all I wanted to make.

Madam Chair Dyson, can I firstly welcome you to what I believe is probably your first official duty as Assistant Speaker in this House. We are thrilled with your appointment. As members—if I can briefly say—we know you to be plain-speaking, clear, and effective in understanding the rules of this House, and we think that this is an absolutely superb appointment. I won’t dwell further. I’m sure you will be plain and tell me where I go wrong over a long period of time that will bear this truth out that I have just spoken. But I do want to thank you for the service that you are going to provide to this House as a respected member for the House.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: She’s not doing leave any more, David. You don’t have to grease!

She’s no longer doing leave, as the former chief whip for the National Party says—we don’t need to curry any favour! I should stop there.

I do want to address some of the points raised by the member Aupito William Sio, the honourable Minister. The report, of course, which led to these process changes made 51 recommendations. It was the stage two report, and it made 51 detailed recommendations to reduce the likelihood of a similar event. That report itself did not focus so much on the events of Havelock North—that was focused on in the first, the stage one, report, which found that sheep faeces had made their way into groundwater that was used untreated to supply drinking water to the people of Havelock North. Despite meeting the tests that were laid down in law, that water was still supplied to citizens, with tragic consequences.

The stage two report looks at the broader system and the changes that need to happen, and this bill arises out of that report. It is a consequence of the realisation that by the time of the report’s release, more than 600,000 New Zealanders had received non-disinfected water. By June 2018, that figure had been reduced to 90,000, so the system as a whole has started to make the changes itself. Mosgiel has changed its water supply. I’m aware that Lower Hutt has made changes. Christchurch has temporarily chlorinated water while they’re waiting to put safety plans in place. Around the country, councils have taken responsibility and stepped up. Auckland and Wellington already, of course, have disinfected water supplies and are not perhaps at risk in the same way that other parts of the country may be.

The changes proposed in this bill get to how we make sure the process is right for setting the standards. I have previously addressed questions around the balance between affordability, availability, and making sure that serious harm is not caused. Those are the kinds of things that we want to lay out in the bill effectively so that at law they can be debated in a way that’s transparent and clear and we get a result that ensures that water continues to be supplied, and so that it’s not punitively applied but that we get safe drinking-water and that the consultation periods in play are reasonable rather than the three-year periods, as the member Angie Warren-Clark pointed out, that have been changed in the bill down now to 28 days for the gazetting. So that’s another part that’s being changed.

Now, these things are being done to make sure that we as parliamentarians are taking seriously our responsibility in responding to the Havelock North findings, recognising that since the events and before the report was released, there are 50—and they’re recorded independent; I just looked it up—public reported events of water contamination all over New Zealand—all over New Zealand—that occurred even in that time between Havelock North and the report being published.

We need to act. We need to make sure that we are doing what needs to be done to make sure that our drinking water is safe, and these changes in the law will facilitate that. Again, I thank the members in the select committee, who have made this possible. Thank you.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Further amendments to principal Act