Water Services Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Water Services Bill. Part 1: this is the debate on clauses 3 to 20, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to speak, in Part 1, to clause 8 of the bill, and I wanted to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Christopher Luxon. And, clause 8, the request is that we insert a new clause 8(f), for which the wording is “does not include a supplier who supplies drinking water to fewer than 30 end point users.” And the reason I wish to speak to that, and perhaps ask some questions to the Minister around that, is that we see that this clause is going to be quite an administrative burden not just for the farmers, for the bach owners, for the marae but also for the people in Taumata Arowai who have to go through the process of setting up the administration functions for this particular piece of legislation. And, while we accept that the Minister has her own Supplementary Order Paper which proposes to extend the time, we still feel that to go to this level and have water sources under 30 end point users will create a lot of angst amongst smaller suppliers.

And a second question for the Minister is: firstly, is she confident that the administration will be able to be set up around it? Secondly: is she confident that a lot of water suppliers who currently supply a neighbour or somebody else are not going to simply disconnect those water pipes and expect those neighbouring houses to supply their own water?

Firstly, can I thank the member for speaking to the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by her colleague Chris Luxon, who was a member of the Health Committee. Our first premise around the approach to small suppliers is to ensure that every small and rural water supply is brought into a higher-standards framework. We don’t want to abandon any community. We want the assurance of every drinking-water supplier to be included. I think, helpfully, and the select committee will be aware of this through the consideration of this particular issue, it’s simply not true that drinking-water contamination is only experienced through metro suppliers; it is also experienced in smaller suppliers.

The Ministry of Health’s annual report on drinking-water quality gave some information that, between the period 2019 to 2020, it reported that suppliers serving 501 to 5,000 consumers were 43.8 in compliance and those suppliers serving 100 to 500 consumers were at a compliance rate of 31.3 percent. And, again, it was very unknown as to what the level of compliance was for those water suppliers, drinking suppliers, serving 100 customers or less.

But, practically, the benefit of including small suppliers into the regime that we are proposing, that is overseen by Taumata Arowai, is that Taumata Arowai will be responsible for working with small suppliers towards practical solutions, and “practical” is the operative word, because we want to ensure that small suppliers and the nature and profile of how they supply water according to the scale, size, and complexity, as we’ve said in this House, is taken into account as we come up with solutions that work for small suppliers.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a further question to follow up on that one, we know that there are options around water filters and UV filters and things like that. Were there any other options that were discussed that would have perhaps suited the purposes of the small water suppliers, other than a registration process?

There may well be other options, but the point that we were trying to get to—and there’s some experience of Taumata Arowai as the bill was being considered because they were working with small suppliers and rural communities around practical considerations. So there may well be in the future. That’s probably the best answer. But as it stands now, the opportunity to make provisions for UV devices at the point of—like, at the house, will enable small suppliers to ensure that they can provide the household safe drinking water.

Now, I have some experience of this to the extent that part of my electorate has large rural areas. You only need to visit the rural parts of your communities to know that there could be some 5 kilometres between where water is sourced, to stock being fed, and then the house falls after that particular set of challenges around water supply.

So Taumata Arowai, according, again, to the scale and profile of what they’re dealing with in small rural supplies, will take all of this practically into account. There is no sense whatsoever in our conversations with rural advocates that they have misunderstood the intention of the legislation. I think there is a fair reflection back from them, as we want to be assured, that when Taumata Arowai is working with them to seek out practical solutions those solutions are practical. And that is the intention.

Thank you, Minister. As you’d be acutely aware, I live in a rural community. Seventy-five percent of the Kaipara is on self-served water. You know, this, to rural people, is actually a real concern. You’ve used the word “abandoned”—“We’re not going to abandon anyone”. Well, a lot of rural communities actually feel abandoned by this legislation in so much as what it proposes to do is, firstly, and I think the National member Barbara Kuriger alluded to the fact, it doesn’t give a carve-out for people in small rural communities or irrigation schemes which often have—like, for example, under 30 homes, six homes, seven homes, and this is going to put huge amounts of fiscal onus on them, which they don’t actually need.

Can the Minister speak to what financial penalties they might be facing if they get encapsulated by this scheme, and who is that legal onus on? We’ve got irrigation schemes, farm water schemes, all over New Zealand, that this piece of legislation takes the rights of ownership away from.

At the fear of going right down the tunnel hole in the wrong direction in terms of the intent of this legislation, can I say that the solution that we came up with, in consultation with rural advocates who wanted to ensure a practical solution, is something that goes along these lines. Firstly, a supplier that chooses to comply with an acceptable solution doesn’t need to have a drinking-water safety plan or a source water risk management plan. So the compliance issues that you’re talking about largely relate to, kind of, some of those perceived challenges.

In addition to that, consumer complaints will not apply to very small suppliers, only public suppliers. The registration process is intended to be simplified, especially for small suppliers, and made free. And there will be tailored online templates and guidance for small suppliers, because we’ve heard the concerns from rural communities that if there is too much red tape around the way in which we’re expected to engage with the legislation, that would be problematic.

The other area is that, as I said, Taumata Arowai, by and large, will work with the Ministry for Primary Industries, especially in rural communities such as the member’s, to simplify any compliance issues that are unnecessary and not in keeping with the intent of the legislation again. The clear intention from the outset with the Water Services Bill is to tailor solutions for rural and small suppliers in a very practical way, to ensure workability.

Minister, just if I may, just to get some clarity here, can she give the rural community some certainty that those that are offering the service of supplying safe drinking water to half a dozen homes won’t opt out of this piece of legislation, and, by virtue of doing so, affect the wellbeing of half a dozen houses that are now, effectively, cut off because of this piece of legislation?

I think the way that the question is framed is difficult, because it’s not an opt-out scenario. This is an opportunity where the Health Committee has argued and brought forward, and I have accepted, that the period of times for rural suppliers to be included into this regime should be extended. We have pushed that time frame out to around about seven years, and we’ve ensured that Taumata Arowai will have some working examples of how to accommodate some of the challenges in the rural profile and the nature of how water is supplied to their communities so that practical solutions are achieved.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Could the Minister explain to us what she said, earlier in the day in the House, that she was very pleased with the consultative work that had gone on with Federated Farmers, and how that aligns with the comments from Federated Farmers—under the headline, “Feds’ worst fears realised on drinking water reforms—that said, “We wanted the government to recognise the folly of trying to track down every single little supplier. We asked for anyone supplying less than fifty people be exempted, but in the end were not heard.”? And does the Minister agree that, in fact, this could put people in a worse position—if suppliers opt out of continuing to supply and people are forced into collecting rain water for their drinking water, they would actually be in a much worse situation?

I want to take from a letter that I received on 21 September, from Andrew Hoggard, national president of Federated Farmers, the following quote—and I apologise for the length of time taken to extract this quote, for the committee’s benefit. He has said, “It is encouraging that compliance with acceptable solutions, including end point treatment, will remove the need for drinking water safety plans and source water risk management plans, and that consumer complaints processes will not apply to very small suppliers. We support more time being provided in the legislation for registration of water suppliers, and we welcome your assurance that registration processes will be simple and free with templates and guidance available. Much will depend on the detail of acceptable solutions for small rural water supplies. Federated Farmers is committed to engaging with Taumata Arowai to ensure that acceptable solutions are fit for purpose and provide for safe drinking water at a reasonable cost, with as little compliance hassle as possible. However, at this stage at least, there are still many uncertainties.” In saying that, they’ve indicated at the end of the letter: “Thank you again for hearing our concerns and responding to them.” and they would welcome maintaining a dialogue with myself and officials to develop win-win solutions. I seek to table the letter in the Chamber today.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. It may be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Could the Minister, then, please, guarantee and have those comments put into the legislation, that with smaller rural water schemes, they will not be required to have all the compliance matters that she just listed from that letter from Andrew Hoggard?

At this juncture let me speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I’ve tabled on this bill. I’ve been listening to submissions made to the Health Committee, the concerns raised by committee members, and I thank them for their diligence, because they responded to my request to ensure that we had workable solutions, and the subsequent public discussion following the bill’s report back to Parliament. My SOP responds to concerns that have been raised. I want to speak about the measures in it so that other parliamentarians who were not a part of the select committee may understand it in a fulsome way.

Firstly, the SOP extends the time in which unregistered drinking-water suppliers will come into the new regime. Unregistered suppliers will have four years to register with Taumata Arowai, and seven years to comply with the new requirements. This responds to concerns raised by small suppliers about compliance with the new regime, including those in the rural sector. The extension will give time for small suppliers to understand the new requirements and give Taumata Arowai time to work with them, fully tailor the system to them, and provide support to small suppliers. It also aligns with the time frames in which the new water service entities will be established. This was important to the Health Committee—again, I acknowledge them—which had already extended time frames for registration based on submissions on the bill.

I know that National MP Chris Luxon has tabled an SOP proposing that the bill does not apply to suppliers serving fewer than 30 consumers. The Government cannot support this. It abandons small communities, as I’ve said, and gives them no clear way forward to have safe drinking water. The better approach, I would’ve thought, is to tailor the new regime to the needs of small suppliers and give them treatment options—like, for example, UV filter devices that are simple and cost-effective. This is what the bill does, and the legacy of this approach, I believe, will be safe drinking water throughout New Zealand irrespective of where people live.

Secondly, my SOP extends waste-water powers and functions for Taumata Arowai. This is important as many submissions to the Health Committee said that the sewage that is discharging into our rivers and beaches is simply not acceptable. I agree with those submissions and want to ensure that Taumata Arowai has much stronger powers in this area. Taumata Arowai will have the power to make environmental performance standards for publicly owned waste-water networks. These are minimum standards which must be included in the new resource consent, or if they relate to trade waste in bylaws. This power brings New Zealand into line with other countries, including member States of the European Union, the UK, Canada, USA, Australia, and South Africa, which all impose some form of minimum standards on publicly owned waste-water networks.

Every publicly owned waste-water network will be required to have a risk management plan. These plans are subject to oversight by Taumata Arowai and will considerably improve planning and safety for waste-water networks. The SOP clarifies that all of Taumata Arowai’s oversight powers for waste-water networks extend to trade waste. This was always the intention of the bill, but some organisations—Forest & Bird—questioned whether this is the case. It will mean that Taumata Arowai will provide much-needed oversight to trade waste. Taumata Arowai will be able to set targets for publicly owned three waters infrastructure which network operators will have to report against.

Thirdly, the SOP extends Taumata Arowai’s environmental performance powers in the bill to drinking-water network infrastructure. This means that Taumata Arowai will have the ability to shine a light on the impact of drinking-water networks on the environment and report, for example, on rates of leakage of drinking water. Its powers here will be analogous to those that already exist in the bill for waste- and stormwater networks and their operators.

Finally, the SOP will also make refinements and technical amendments across a range of clauses. I do want to acknowledge and thank the Hon Eugenie Sage for some of her technical amendments. This follows detailed ongoing review of the provisions by officials to make sure the legislation is as good as it can be.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, thank you. It’s on a different topic, but in Part 1—because I’ll have some questions when we get to Part 3 on waste water—clause 14 is about giving effect to Te Mana o te Wai for anyone performing a function, power, or duty under the Act. This is something new that is in this legislation. Taumata Arowai has recourse to a Māori advisory committee. But just to ask the Minister: what progress has Taumata Arowai made in providing or developing some guidance on how Te Mana o te Wai is given effect to, and what does she see as the major benefit of having this in the legislation? Because there were a lot of submissions on it. Kia ora.

Thank you for the question. It would be fair to say that Taumata Arowai—the board, alongside the Māori advisory council—is still working through the matter in which the Māori advisory council can offer up advice to give recognition for Te Mana o te Wai obligations. They have some time to be able to do that. I expect, in my next report, to be able to receive some detail of how those conversations have progressed, but they’re still very much at the early stages of (1) identifying their role and responsibility, and then assessing the nature of the opportunity in so far as contributing to Te Mana o te Wai considerations within a dedicated water regulator.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, to the Minister, I really understand your concern for clean water, as we all have, but just speaking to Christopher Luxon’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) again, I understand that the Minister very kindly has agreed to extend the time frame—and I’m looking for a way forward here. I wonder if there was a possibility that the Minister could perhaps see her way clear to accept Christopher Luxon’s SOP to the point where those things that were just discussed in a previous speech of hers related to Federated Farmers and Andrew Hoggard and the simplified answers that we’re looking for, or the simple ways of doing this. Could we actually exempt those small water providers, within that time frame that the Minister has provided, until we can have a look at those simplified regulations and have another chance to have a look through? So build Christopher’s SOP into her time frames. Would that be a possibility?

The greatest possibility that those small suppliers will have under the proposed approach is to work with Taumata Arowai to understand the scale and complexity of the challenges that might be more perceptual than real. So we have made all the changes that have been offered up by rural communities to reduce the complexity and compliance challenges that they foreshadow could be impacting on them, and also the cost; then, in a very practical way, opened up the opportunity for Taumata Arowai to work according to local variances and characteristics. I think that’s a really positive way forward, because it then means that the challenge of achieving safe drinking water for every community and every household, no matter whether they’re in a rural, metro, or provincial part of the country, can be achieved.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, earlier this year, the Minister fast-tracked the passage of the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill to reduce the financial burden on marae. What would the Minister say to marae about the cost and obligations that this bill will impose on marae to meet the requisite infrastructure and resources necessary to meet the duties imposed in the regime? A corollary to that, the explanatory note to the bill states that the bill provides mechanisms that enable many aspects of drinking-water regulation to be proportionate to the scale, complexity, and risk profile of a supply. However, the relevant clauses that refer to that are 3, 31, and 32. I note that those are simply a restatement of the explanatory note, and I’d ask how that provides certainty to anyone, in respect of how that is going to be assessed and determined for both suppliers and the regulatory authority?

I thank the member for the question. Many of the issues facing marae communities are facing small rural suppliers. So, much in the same way that I’ve responded in so far as Taumata Arowai, working with small rural suppliers, the same approach will apply to Māori suppliers in the nature of their scheme. Several marae throughout the country are not connected to the core of the public infrastructure; they do have to find on-site solutions. They do periodically hold significant hui. So Taumata Arowai, just as it’s been working with small rural suppliers has also been working alongside a cluster of marae that have very different ways of sourcing and providing water within their community—but that’s, again, to find practical solutions.

Thank you. Minister, just quickly, if you could clarify—and I think this is quite a salient point. Does the Minister realistically accept that small suppliers who are not corporate bodies and who are not commercial users, to sign up to a penalty regime, which in many instances, if there’s a compliance failure, could cost them several hundred thousand dollars—and how could she speak to that, when we’re talking about often rural schemes with under 30 houses or dwellings?

I just go further on my colleague Mark Cameron’s point. I have spoken to people who do manage rural water suppliers now, and they say that the penalty regime will, basically, mean for them that they cannot continue in their role. These are people who are very experienced in the provision of water. They’ve done a very good job over many, many years ensuring water is supplied to their rural communities. So I would ask the Minister to explain to them whether it is worth them continuing in the role providing water to their communities with a punitive penalty regime that exposes them to a very high level of risk.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on again from both of those questions. The Minister has said that Taumata Arowai would work through acceptable solutions that simplify and reduce compliance, and perhaps address the sort of questions that have just been asked in terms of the noncompliance penalties. But the problem is that once this bill is passed and they are in this legislation, they have no power for that discussion around those simplified, acceptable solutions or that reduced compliance or those reduced penalties. So is the Minister able to either do as my colleague Barbara Kuriger has said, carve those small water schemes of under 30 out until those simplified, reduced compliance standards have been made clear, so that there is this level of uncertainty taken away from those small, rural water suppliers, and not only the level of uncertainty but the fear that, indeed, they may not be able to reach an acceptable solution that does reduce that compliance acceptably.

Mr Speaker, I seek some guidance. I’m happy to vote on Part 1 and Part 2 and jump straight to Part 3, where there are compliance issues being raised.

Someone in the committee would need to move that we take this as one debate and one vote. I’ll just comment on it. I have been generous in allowing people to speak on not only Part 1 but people have drifted out on to other parts—might I say, including the Minister; however, that was in response to those. So I thank her. So, if the committee is of a mind to do that, I’ll gladly have that.

I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. I’ll just get the correct wording. Thank you very much. The question now is that Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2