Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Part 2 is focused on further amendments across—it’s kind of; most of the action happens in Part 1, if we want to put it that way, in a simple way. It follows on from Part 1; we have Part 2. It makes further amendments through the Act. They are important amendments because we want clear law that doesn’t contain those kinds of anomalies that create problems for us, where people can dispute things or hold things up on technicalities.

We want our water to be safe. The principles that are debated and laid out in Part 1—it needs to be ensured that they flow through, if you’ll excuse the pun, and they flow quickly in the water space. Some of them are very wet, and I’m not going to make a splash with them, I can see that. So, for example, if you take, in clause 14, amending the interpretation, the definition of “critical points”—we’ve repealed one paragraph and we changed the definitions of “designated port or airport” and “medical officer of health”. In section 69G, we replaced the definition of a “drinking-water assessor” with “drinking-water assessor means an individual appointed under section 69ZK as a drinking-water assessor.”

These points of clarification make sure nobody can be in any doubt as to what is meant in the bill to make sure that we are clarifying which ports of call are the ones that are being assessed, who’s assessing them—the why, the wherefore, we dealt with in Part 1. So I think these things are important. I think, again, they will enjoy support across the committee. I’m looking across the Chamber to see if there’s any objection to these things; I’m not seeing much engagement, to be honest—there’s a few lights out on the other side of the Chamber today.

But I will stop there because I think it’s important that this is debated by members of the committee. The facts are that this is the clarification stuff that’s needed to make sure that nobody’s in any doubt.

First of all, Madam Chair, I’d like to also congratulate you on this, your first sit in the hot seat—except when you’re bringing a bill through, I’m sure.

Look, I have a very, very brief matter to raise, and it is, really, just in regards to the drinking-water assessors. Essentially, we have changed the standard. Previously, a body or an entity or an organisation could be a water assessor, and I just stand to make the very simple point that we have now changed that to ensure that the person is now an individual, and that is relevant. We’ve taken away the standards which were particularly listed as very descriptive and created difficulty with people complying with those standards—so, for example, they had to have an international qualification, which wasn’t that relevant to the New Zealand context.

So I rise very briefly, but mainly, also, to congratulate you, Madam Chair, and to just talk about section 69ZX. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I want to endorse those remarks, but first say them in our Māori language, acknowledging the ascension which you have experienced.

Nā reira me mihi ahau ki a koe. Mōku i mōhio atu ki a koe hoki ana ngā whakaaro ki te wā i noho ai tātou tahi ki Tapu te Ranga, ki Beach Street i Island Bay i te tau 1987-88. Hari ana au kua eke koe ki tēnei tūranga. He mōhio nōu ki ngā ritenga o tēnei Whare i ngā wā o te māramatanga, i ngā wā o te kōrehurehutanga. Nā reira, tēnā koe.

[Therefore I must congratulate you. I have known you, going back to the time we lived together at Tapu te Ranga, at Beach Street in Island Bay in the year 1987-88. I’m pleased you have been appointed to this position. You understand the inner workings of the House during times of clarity and during times of uncertainty. So congratulations.]

Thank you for indulging me, Madam Chair. I recalled that in 1987-88, I was your neighbour. I lived at 22 Beach Street, you lived at 24 Beach Street, and I recall seeing a very large man in the form of David Lange, from time to time, lug himself up the stairs, and if I’m not mistaken, you had a guard dog, or there was certainly a dog that was around there, because I was continually worried that it might bite my son, who has a tendency to antagonise all things of the natural world—which is why he has been known, from time to time, to gain the baleful glare of the current sitting member of the seat of Northland. However, that’s another matter. [Interruption] I did say the current sitting member.

I want to take us to Part 2, “Further amendments to principal Act”, new section 69ZX. Prior to your arriving and taking the Chair, I raised a couple of questions about some definition for the term “assessor”. Now, if I go to new subsection (1), “The Director-General must maintain a register of individuals who have been appointed as drinking-water assessors.” Now, at the end of the day, it will fall to the High Court in the event someone tests the meaning of these words, and with your forbearance, Madam Chair, I just want to pose a couple of questions to the Minister in the seat.

When the director-general maintains a register, that’s not only a list of professionals; those professionals presumably have to comply with a backdrop of criteria in order for them to gain status on the register. I’m imagining that the term “drinking-water assessors”—and I couldn’t see it in the definition, but I understand it means an individual appointed under a certain section, but it would be useful to know whether there is a statutory definition of the term “drinking-water assessor”.

So in order for the appointment to take place, does this person, he or she, have to actually exhibit professional characteristics, professional qualifications, aptitude, state of mind, in order for them to undertake this incredibly important public health function? Or is it possible that such a statutory person is appointed after an additional set of regulations come into force? Members of the select committee may have made certain assumptions that by tightening up the definition of who can or can’t be an assessor, it’s eminently straightforward. But please let me channel Kaikohe and Kaitāia, for a moment. I think it’s of tremendous interest to those distant places as to who might be an assessor living north of Whangarei. And would that assessor have local knowledge and would that local knowledge be given much emphasis in determining who can go on the register, or will they all come from Opus engineering located somewhere in downtown Auckland? Now, I only raise that because it’d be useful to know what will be the criterion to effect those kinds of appointments.

Madam Chair, thank you, and I thank the member for his question, because it is a very apposite question. The law that we’re working on here doesn’t actually change the definition of a drinking-water assessor. The definition of a drinking-water assessor, or the person who may be one, in the Health Act, is a suitably qualified and appropriate person. That gives the director-heneral, obviously, some discretion to deem what is suitably qualified and appropriate. But there’s a generally accepted understanding that there is a qualifications framework for drinking-water assessors. They have, in essence, as I understand it, public health training. They are specifically trained in water, and also, I imagine—and this is getting to the realms of the extent of my knowledge on their qualifications, although I know it is over a period of time—in infrastructure, and so on, connected to their duties.

Now, as far as I’m aware, there’s not been a complaint at a system level about the quality of drinking-water assessors. If anything, the issue is that we are probably going to need more of them, because the system as a whole has been under-resourced in the area of ensuring that standards were met. Historically, the Director-General of Health hasn’t really invoked his or her powers in enforcing water standards in the way that I think parliamentarians might have expected, when we’ve gone back and looked at the problems that we have uncovered through the Havelock North inquiry. It seems that those powers simply haven’t been invoked to really put the pressure on those drinking-water suppliers to meet the standards of the day, even.

Beyond that, of course, I think it’s widely accepted around the world that standards have advanced, and that we will want to see standards raised, and, indeed, this bill does make it easier to change water standards by having a reasonable consultation period as an expectation rather than a specified one that seems to be far longer than is deemed reasonable in other areas of consultation across our laws in New Zealand.

So I think the fundamental point comes back to that it is a suitably qualified, appropriate person, and it is widely understood that that is somebody who has the appropriate training and qualifications and is a recognised drinking-water assessor. So I thank the member for his question. It’s not the case that we need to worry too much about that, in my view, at a system level. Though the member’s concerns about whether it’s somebody from Opus or somebody with regional knowledge, on the surface, do have some merit, I am yet to be convinced that those kinds of regional details are not taken into account in the training of drinking-water assessors. But if he has other information on that, I would love to hear it.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.