Sio Hon Aupito WilliamHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to follow on in the line of questioning that has been led by the first citizen of the region the father of the Provincial Growth Fund and acknowledge the fact that we aren't talking about health and safety; we are talking about the provision of safe water which is as the Minister has said fundamental—a basic human right. I also note that the Health Committee have identified that this bill is a consequence of the Havelock North drinking-water contamination incident that occurred in August 2016. Now I'm not a member of that select committee so I do want to ask the Minister: what was the recommendation if any from that inquiry that has informed the amendments in this bill?I then want to turn the Minister to section 69H in clause 4A. It says all practical steps in relation to the achievement of any particular result by a person" and then lists off (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f). I am sort of wondering to myself about paragraph (f)—section 69H(1)(f): "their affordability in light of the person's financial position." Affordability and safety appear to me to be contradictory terms because if somebody who's supplying the water believes it's unaffordable does that not put safety at risk? Is that not the purpose of making the amendments because the contamination had something to do with people not being able to afford a proper safe drinking-water supply?Why was it necessary that we have to stipulate (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) as opposed to the original bill? It seems to me that we're really drilling down to the nitty-gritty and that sends alarm bells in my mind because I have not seen the report that refers to the Havelock North contamination but it appears that by us drilling to the details of those particular sections something really bad must have occurred. I'm asking myself: who have we held responsible for the contamination?I also refer the Minister to section 69P in clause 5 "Minister must consult before issuing adopting or amending drinking-water standards" where they're replacing "in a daily newspaper in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch" with "in accordance with subsection [(b)]" and then makes reference to internet site. I don't know the area of Havelock North but I have visited Smedley Station around the Napier part. In some parts of that Smedley Station—wonderful facility as it is—there is no internet access and it appears to me that in the countryside there is a reliance on radio communication where they cannot get online. I recognise that the internet site is sort of the way of the world at the moment but not all parts of New Zealand will have access to the internet and in that part of the world certainly I thought radio station is a way that most country folks are communicating.But it does concern me that there is silence on the other side when this is such a serious matter and the fact that the Minister has been compelled to look in the detail of this. [Interruption] The fact that they're shouting out is evidence itself that this is such a serious matter that we do need to take it seriously. My view is we need to hold somebody responsible for the contamination and there's nothing in this bill that suggests that somebody is being held responsible. If indeed it is a member of the Opposition as has been suggested earlier then we need to make that known. That's all I wanted to make."