Moroney Sue: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Moroney Sue: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12150] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Earlier in the third reading debate on this bill Tony Ryall rose to speak about cost escalations. So I want to examine the issue of cost escalations in the context that it is just too bad that Tony Ryall was not too concerned about cost escalations when he inadvertently let slip that the National Party thought it was a good idea to take the cap off doctors’ fees. That of course is the ultimate in cost escalation and it would deeply affect public health in this country. This bill is also about public health in this country. It is important to consider and address the matter of costs associated with any bill but particularly for a bill that will affect a $5 billion sector that ultimately is vital to this country’s social and economic development. However it is also important that such consideration be balanced and that the figures used are robust. 
We have heard much in opposition to the bill about the varying ministry estimates of the cost of implementing the bill which allegedly was $230 million in 2001 $250 million in 2004 then $300 million in 2006. The escalation seems to surprise Opposition members. Does it not occur to them that the changes merely reflect the increase in the cost of capital works over that period? Therefore although the ministry’s estimates of the costs of the bill increased by 30 percent over the period the costs of housing increased by 47 percent over that same period. It seems to me that the ministry’s estimates reflect reality better than the expectations of the Opposition. But it is not the first time Opposition members have exposed their lack of economic understanding. 
Then to cap it all off the Opposition introduced its own figure of $800 million which it claims comes from Local Government New Zealand. This figure has never been produced by Local Government New Zealand to the Minister to the ministry or even to the select committee. Thus it has never been subject to review. The figures that have been produced to the select committee by Local Government New Zealand include the greatly inflated claims that the costs of the bill to Clutha would be $32.3 million whereas on examination by competent engineers this figure was subsequently reduced to $20 million at the most and even this figure was for a gold-plated upgrade that would ensure that the drinking-water standards would be met under any management conditions. 
The ministry’s consultants costed the upgrades necessary to enable the water suppliers to meet the standards at $4.86 million. In a final attempt to blow smoke into the eyes of the public the Opposition conjured the figure of $2.7 billion out of thin air. Additionally the Opposition also alluded to the large bureaucracy the bill will allegedly create. This is a common feature of its opposition to anything. “Large bureaucracy!” those members scream referring to it as some sort of job creation scheme. But this shows a very poor understanding of the way public health services are provided in New Zealand already. In fact district health boards already employ the designated officers and assessors who will perform the enforcement and compliance verification functions under this bill. At present these officers support the operational aspects of the largely voluntary drinking-water strategy of which this bill is merely one component. [ 
Interruption 
] For the record I say to Mr Ardern the ministry already maintains a register of drinking-water suppliers though given its current voluntary status this does not include many of the smaller suppliers whose existence had not been officially reported to the ministry. 
The ministry also provides regular reports on drinking-water quality and operates a system for recognising the competence of laboratories in carrying out water analysis and it is already promoting understanding and encouraging the uptake of public health risk management plans by drinking-water suppliers. So this bill is an extension of what the ministry has already shown it is capable of providing. 
Although the bill does represent a significant step in completing the framework of controls for drinking water in New Zealand it is important to be mindful of what the bill cannot do and does not do. Therefore there are three important elements that any understanding of the bill must recognise. Firstly all building owners are already subject to legal obligations in relation to water available for consumption by users of buildings. Several statutes apply but the principal one is of course the Building Act 2004. For this reason generally speaking the jurisdiction of the drinking-water bill ends at the water toby. After the water toby the quality of the water is the responsibility of the building owner. Where a building is not connected to a network supply—that is it has its own source of drinking water such as from a roof tank or a bore—then again the drinking water in such buildings is primarily governed by the Building Act that is already in force. 
However where such a self-supplied building is also used by the public or is otherwise a community purpose building then this bill will require it to be included on the register of suppliers; so it should. This is to ensure that the public can have access to information about the quality of the water in such buildings. Additionally more complete information about self-supplied community purpose buildings may also assist with the investigation of water-borne diseases and that would be a good thing. Also within this context the bill strengthens an existing mechanism in the Building Act the land information memorandum provisions to provide important information to building owners and prospective building owners about what is known about the quality of the water in the building. 
The second point is that sources of raw water such as catchments and ground water are managed under the Resource Management Act 1991. Although the drinking-water bill encourages drinking-water suppliers to take an active interest in the overall management of the sources of the raw water they receive legislative jurisdiction for the management of sources stays with the Resource Management Act 1991. In this light and with the active encouragement of the Ministry of Health the Ministry for the Environment is well advanced in its preparation of a national environmental standard for the management of source waters under the Resource Management Act. This will help and in some cases effectively require councils to improve the way in which they manage such sources. 
Finally in keeping with the principle of proportionality the large majority of the provisions in this bill will not apply to the very smallest suppliers. Any supplier that provides water to fewer than 16 permanent residents or to any grouping that in aggregate uses water for fewer than 6000 person-days will not generally be subject to the key requirements in this bill. In other words those suppliers that are even smaller than a neighbourhood supplier will not be subject to most of the provisions of the bill; nor will they have to monitor the quality of their water nor will they be required to prepare and implement public health risk management plans although I hope many of them will. This is less than desirable from a public health perspective but it is a pragmatic recognition of the difficulties faced by such suppliers. However the bill is still clear that even though these very small suppliers must investigate any complaints that might be made about the water they provide they cannot knowingly provide polluted water. 
I say in conclusion that the bill provides for a balanced range of provisions that support its purpose of protecting the health and safety of people and communities. That is the fundamental purpose of this bill. The bill does this in way that provides flexibility for all suppliers particularly small suppliers and it links well with other key statutes. 
One of the interesting things about this debate is that it has continued to expose the idea that the National Party still holds on to dearly—that the market fixes all and that having a voluntary system in place and the invisible hand of the market will deliver quality standards in this country. The evidence is quite to the contrary. The evidence seen by the select committee showed that. Some of the local authorities that came before us argued that they did not want to meet quality water standards at all and some argued that a voluntary standard would not be good enough. The invisible hand of the market is not good enough. We have to do something quite deliberate and quite important to make sure we have First World standards when it comes to healthy drinking-water.