Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill

As the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, will know, and this committee will know, we are supporting this bill. However, I do—at this stage in the committee—wish to ask the Minister, really, some questions as to how this relates potentially to the review of Three Waters and potential announcements of that, and in that space, effectively, how some of the costs that are being incurred on councils from this piece of legislation will be dealt with. Specifically, I know the cost of the regulator are being funded by the Crown, but where the regulator finds that there needs to be upgrades of certain things to meet the standards, will that issue be addressed through other reforms that the Minister is considering, and at what time will those other reforms be announced? Because, while this bill is important—and, as I say, we support it—it is important we understand the context of the total decision-making of the Three Waters.

First of all, can I thank the Health Committee for their careful deliberation on this particular bill. It is my intention, as I have signalled in previous parts of the debate on this bill, to introduce a water services bill to the Health Committee so that they get greater oversight around the regulatory regime. The member Lawrence Yule has asked questions around the Three Waters Review which probably don’t fit specifically within the nature of this debate. Suffice it to say, as a result of the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry, there was a strong push to ensure that we had a more robust and coherent regulatory system around the assurance of drinking-water. So this is the first part of that Three Waters reform approach that I’m taking.

But if I come to the bill specifically, because I do believe we should use the time in the committee to maximise our contribution on how the bill was improved based on the consideration of the select committee, I want to thank the select committee for bringing a number of things to the attention of the House. It has proposed changes which I have accepted, in particular in relation to being more specific around the definition of “drinking-water supplier”. We’ll see that suggestions have been made of that nature, and I welcome the lengthy considerations around why this was important. Suggestions have also been made to ensure that a definition around “domestic dwelling” also be included, so without a shadow of a doubt we knew how the bill was going to affect these domestic self-suppliers. So that’s the first thing.

I also want to highlight that this is a challenging space in terms of regulation and the way in which Māori interests are taken account of. Because Māori have a whole-world view approach to water, there was a view of the select committee to improve the clarity and intent of the definition of “Te Mana o te Wai”. So what they have suggested, which I welcomed, was to put that very clearly in the bill so that there wasn’t an evolving interpretation. So we lifted out the interpretation of “Te Mana o te Wai” as expressed in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and inserted it within the context of this particular bill. What that means in practice, in terms of source protection and also the quality of water going back into the receiving environment—it joins up that holistic concept of Te Mana o te Wai in terms of the way in which the regulator oversees drinking-water, waste-water and storm-water systems. So I want to thank them for that aspect.

There were also useful suggestions around the role and function of the advisory group, and also Taumata Arowai having access to a technical advisory group. If I comment on the dual membership of a person being in the Māori Advisory Group and being able to sit on the board, what that would do, very clearly, is lift up the considerations of the Māori Advisory Group to the board-level discussions.

This bill establishes the regulator; the roles and functions are in clause 10. The objectives and functions of the regulator are expressed in clauses 10 and 11, and that, I understand from the information I received, was well canvassed and discussed with submitters. Overall, the profile of submissions highlighted support for a dedicated drinking-water regulator. The sector has long asked for this in the post - Havelock North inquiry context. If I pick up briefly on the point raised about how this gets funded, initially the Crown will make a contribution to the funding of the regulator, to stand it up and initiate its functions. Over time, there will be provision for levies and fees to be charged, and those specific matters will be the substance of the water services bill that is intended to go to the Health Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 530 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill, the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill, and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.