Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. With your indulgence I just want to start a little bit further away from the scope of the bill and bring my point back to it. Today and tomorrow the annual Aspiring Leaders Forum is being hosted here at Parliament and I have just come from a forum with my parliamentary colleagues Chlöe Swarbrick and Jan Tinetti. A number of the questions that were asked about us and the way we go about our business seemed to indicate that there was a perpetually adversarial environment to this House and to its committees. We were at pains to point out to them that not only was that not the case in the engine room the select committees but also even in this place—that the one-minute sound bite on the TV isn't actually how a lot of the business is done. Indeed I would hazard a guess that probably at least half if not the majority of the bills that are passaged through the House in this term of Parliament have so far had the support of the majority the overwhelming majority of the parties. And so it is this afternoon where we've had three bills where they've had unanimous or near unanimous support of all parties. So it is with this one because of course we all know of the very serious water contamination issues that emerged in Havelock North a couple of years ago. Indeed the genesis of this was the inquiry that the previous Government commenced and which the present Government is picking up and implementing the recommendations for and we certainly endorse both those recommendations as a whole and we will watch with interest when the Minister of Local Government brings back the proposals for how the Government intends to deliver the substantive recommendations of the Havelock North water inquiry. But in the meantime we have this what I would call precedent or foundational piece of legislation that the Minister of Health has introduced and which we will continue to support because it is the right thing to do. It's necessary and appropriate and it's by no means anything like the substantive reforms that will be involved as a consequence of the contamination but it is important to do. I also want to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee that worked diligently under the very good chair Louisa Wall and the collegial way in which almost all of the business is done—but certainly on this issue—and also the submitters who came in. I'm not going to repeat the Minister's descriptions the very good descriptions of the suggestions that came from the submitters very smart suggestions and which the select committee recommended changes to. I will draw attention to a couple of the belts and braces issues that were referenced. The evidence of affordability I think is very important—to have some kind of scrutiny on those claims and indeed there are other aspects of legislation that have that not the least I think is section 31 or 32 of the Employment Relations Act where affordability as a retort to a pay claim needs to have an evidence base. So it's certainly by no means novel or new. Also of course I think the water safety plans are something that should be scrutinised by the assessor not the supplier. Those I think are completely consistent with the policy intent and will actually improve the bill. So with those short words I'm very pleased to continue to support the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill at its second reading.