Soper Lesley: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Soper Lesley: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12154] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 Perhaps the Opposition speakers should adopt a new theme song “Water Water Everywhere But Not a Safe Drop to Drink” to go with their opposition to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. 
I was a member of the Health Committee that worked very hard on this bill over a lengthy period as the chair has said and consulted widely with Local Government New Zealand to address concerns. I am proud to stand to support the third reading. I am also a lifelong water drinker who has experienced in a number of rural communities in the South Island being given the advice not to drink the tap water. I have heard that same sort of advice in Third World countries too but New Zealand is a First World country. We aim for First World outcomes. May I say that I was at a certain southern primary school on several occasions in the last few years when that school was threatened with closure due to the dangerous quality of the water supply. This bill will ensure that that sort of nonsense does not happen again. 
This bill is about ensuring that all New Zealanders on community water supplies have access to safe drinking-water. That is a basic right and expectation in a First World country. It continues to amaze me that with nearly every other party in this House supporting this bill the speakers from the National Party want to do nothing but play politics with it. Do any of those National speakers at all including the ones with medical qualifications—one of whom is currently leaving the Chamber—actually listen to and believe what they are saying? Well it would appear that they do not and perhaps their opposition to this bill is not so surprising coming from a party that would sell off water in this country if it got a chance. National would privatise water just as it has announced that it would privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation and just as it has announced that it would dramatically increase funding to private schools sell off State assets and remove the cap on doctors’ fees and tertiary fees in order to allow them to skyrocket. 
National members would no doubt say as the cloud-jumper Mr Key has said in relation to removing the cap on doctors’ fees that the market would rule and in this case miraculously deliver us safe drinking-water from somewhere or other. Perhaps as Mr Key said on doctors’ fees people could go down the road to find another drinking-water supplier that was safer than the one they had. 
The fact is that at the current time there is only a voluntary requirement for water suppliers to comply with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005. About 71 percent of New Zealand suppliers currently provide drinking water that already complies with the standards which means for those members on the other side of the Chamber who find it hard to figure it out mathematically that about 29 percent do not. It is not acceptable that a high percentage of New Zealanders receive drinking water that is either below standard or not graded. 
Moana Mackey 
: Nick Smith agreed with that. 
LESLEY SOPER 
: That is right; Nick Smith himself agreed with that. It is equally not acceptable that a party that cannot even work out its own health policy should vote against such an important public health bill as this one. The Ministry of Health says that the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is necessary to prevent a major disease outbreak and to tackle high rates of gastrointestinal disease and the ministry is right. 
Let me go over just some of the damage that has been done already. In 1984 3500 people were sick in Queenstown because of contaminated water. There were 61 cases of campylobacter at a school camp near Christchurch in 1997 67 cases at Wainuiomata in 1997 and 187 cases at a college in May 2001. There were 69 cases of viral gastroenteritis at a major ski field in 1996 and 49 cases at a school camp in the Waikato in 2003. The Masterton town water supply was contaminated in 2003 and let us not forget Cardrona in 2006. 
It has been notable that some of the figures supplied to scaremonger on this bill have been wildly inflated and the highest ones come from the National Opposition not from Local Government New Zealand—most notably the figures of cost to the Clutha District Council of $32.3 million. An examination by competent engineers reduced that figure to $20 million for a gold-plated upgrade and to $4.86 million once the upgrades actually necessary to enable the water suppliers to meet the standards were costed. With new maths like this it is no surprise that the National Party thinks it can fund more private education borrow overseas to pay for tax cuts remove the cap on doctors’ fees and tertiary education and let the market rule—and somehow it will all work out! 
The Health Committee reported back an amended bill that was carefully considered. It is a practical bill. It is a responsible bill. It is a bill that provides for reasonable time frames embodies a preventive approach provides for public health risk management plans and uses existing district health board designated officers and assessors to perform the enforcement and compliance verification functions. In other words the bill provides a balanced and sensible range of provisions to protect public health in this country. The bill is supported by the Labour-led Government which is investing $154 million over 10 years to help to upgrade and improve small water suppliers. This bill is one we should be proud of as a First World country and I am proud to support it.