Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora; thank you. I was expecting somebody from the opposite side to get up but nevertheless it's my absolute pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I do have to say that if it was to have a different title it would be the Health (Guarantee of Safe Drinking Water) Amendment Bill" because essentially that's what this piece of legislation does. I think it is explicit about our right as New Zealanders to have water sources that are fit for purpose quite frankly and from the perspective of the Health Committee it has been in response to the Havelock North outbreak. People have talked about it but I think it's almost criminal in a community where 39 percent of the population becomes sick because of the drinking water that was supplied to them which also resulted in deaths hospitalisations and health complications that people have to live with for the rest of their lives that this was certainly the wake-up call that led to an inquiry. I think one of the issues that was highlighted in the inquiry was that actually 20 percent of network suppliers do not have water that meets all current standards. So this issue wasn't just about Havelock North; what it did was enable the exposure of some of the systemic issues that we have. This piece of legislation is phase one of a two-phase process and fundamentally it's about ensuring that suppliers now have a duty of care to ensure that the water that they are providing to New Zealand citizens is fit for purpose and will not make them sick. So one of the things I want to highlight in terms of our deliberations was about removing some of the bureaucracy that had previously been in place where there was a three-year time frame for changing drinking-water standards. We've now removed that requirement and it actually is similar to what Jan Tinetti was talking about: it's about being responsive to new technologies and our understandings of the infrastructure that's required. So that was one of the major changes that we implemented and the other was that it was not only the requirement to develop water-safety plans but it was also a requirement that the suppliers have the capacity to implement those water-safety plans. Having a water-safety plan—hello Judith—in itself is not sufficient. You actually—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! LOUISA WALL: Sorry. She's waving at me my Papakura buddy—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Even then you use her full name. LOUISA WALL: The Hon Judith Collins. So what we made fundamental to the development of these water-safety plans was actually the ability to implement them. From the perspective of the committee and the submitters I think everyone was pretty clear that we didn't want a repeat of Havelock North. So there is a requirement now for those suppliers to manage and control those critical points that they've identified in their water-safety plans because fundamentally we do not want to have a water supply to communities that was contaminated and that actually could harm them. One of the other highlights I think was in the current Health Act 1956: until this piece of legislation goes through there is a defence on the supplier if they in their assessment have taken "all practicable steps" to prevent what they've identified as these critical points in their water-safety plans. We had actually prioritised availability and affordability in that process which meant that you could say that "Well we didn't do that because the technology wasn't available." or "We didn't know what to do to remediate that." and also it was too expensive. So one of the things that we prioritised as a select committee was to say there are six components of that "all practicable steps" process and I just want to read them out and highlight them. Now no longer will you be able to say "We didn't do it because we couldn't afford it." so you have to know the nature and severity of the harm that may be suffered if the result is not achieved. You do have to have knowledge about the current state of knowledge about the likelihood that harm of that nature and severity will be suffered if the results are not achieved. You have to know the current state of knowledge about harm of that nature and the current state of knowledge about the means available to achieve the result and about the likely efficiency of each and then their availability and their affordability become additional factors. And I bring that to the attention of the House because I think we've gone a long way to ensuring from a systemic perspective that the suppliers now have a framework which will enable them to deliver water in a manner that will not harm our citizens no matter where they live.I actually am not going to speak for very much longer; I get a feeling that this week the House has debated and discussed and talked about the situation in Havelock enough but suffice to say I think from my perspective I do want to take the opportunity to thank the Ministry of Health officials and those who worked on this particular piece of legislation for their diligence. Again I know a lot of people and I've actually seen the Minister's speech commending the Health Committee's work on this bill. I do want to say and reiterate again that I think within the health space it is incredibly collegial. We try our utmost best to ensure that the legislation that goes through our committee does actually meet the purpose it was designed for and a lot of the amendments and a lot of the contributions are about making that legislation the best legislation it can be for the citizens of New Zealand. So I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.Bill read a third time."