Stewart Barbara: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11877] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow that member. He is intelligent he believed what he was saying but in this instance he was totally wrong. We do need some facts on this particular situation. New Zealand First supports the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It is long overdue and we unlike the National Party support all practical steps being taken to improve the drinking-water standards in the cities where our National members mainly live and in the country towns. 
The Health Committee worked hard on this bill and we have to acknowledge the patience and the significant input from the select committee officials and the input from the Local Government New Zealand representatives. We know that quite a number of improvements have been made to the bill as a result of their input. And of course we must acknowledge the input here of New Zealand First and the Greens as well. We know that most drinking water in New Zealand is supplied by local councils with quality standards currently set by a voluntary compliance regime—voluntary not compulsory. This has delivered good water to the city where Mr David Bennett lives but in the small communities with populations of 10000 people or fewer water standards are variable—good in the winter perhaps not so good in the summer and councils are less likely to be involved. Small communities with populations of 10000 or fewer really do not have the same quality of water that we have in the towns and cities and they may have higher costs and some administrative work to actually comply with this legislation. 
 We have to recognise that these smaller and more isolated water systems will create some challenges for communities where the council is not involved. We must remember too that these communities have access to their own resources and also to the funding and the technical assistance funding that has been made available by the Government. So it will be absolutely essential that the relevant authorities work through the details of the funding and technical assistance available and that the level of funding is reviewed to ensure it is adequate for the implementation of this bill for small suppliers. 
I must say that it would be extremely remiss of a Government not to ensure that it had a comprehensive risk management strategy in place to ensure that people and communities have clean drinking-water available at all times. We would expect that to be done and we would blame the Government if it were not. Clean drinking-water is a basic requirement for any First World country—and we like to think of ourselves as a First World country. The strategy in this bill is to have a drinking-water standard to set out the duties of drinking-water suppliers and to have a register of community drinking-water suppliers—and it is a sound strategy. We do not need a voluntary regime any more. We need to have a regulatory regime to promote the quality and safety of drinking water rather than relying totally on the voluntary mechanisms that have regulated the drinking-water sector in the past. Other developed nations have this sort of framework in place and it is time for New Zealand to move in this direction. 
Compared with international experience we know that New Zealanders do not value good-quality drinking-water. The reality is that we do not even think about it; we just expect it to be there when we turn on the tap as a normal part of life. We know that we have a looming diabetes and obesity problem and it is really essential that parents and relevant agencies can promote water as a viable alternative to fizzy drinks and any other types of drinks that our children are consuming. 
In some parts of New Zealand there have been drinking-water system failures that have caused relatively minor illnesses. Fortunately none at this time has resulted in death but I would imagine that the people affected did not believe that the illness was minor when they got sick. The example that first springs to mind is the very recent occurrence at the Cardrona ski field. 
Threats from new pathogens and a slowly changing attitude by all Kiwis to the duty of care from public providers mean that higher standards will be demanded from the institutions that regulate and deliver drinking water to us. Over the summer months I like most other MPs have received complaints from people about the smell and the taste of the water they are receiving. Of course we must include in this the many organisations that deliver drinking water to those of us in rural areas who are dependent on rainwater that we get only from tanks. We have to buy water from suppliers over the summer months and we do notice a significant difference in the taste of it. 
Like most parties we had some concerns about the costs that could be expected to follow on as a result of this legislation and we would like to see this level of funding reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate. Risks are always associated with providing essential Government financial assistance because we know that this financial assistance has to manage a whole range of risks that in themselves can be a challenge. The very last thing we want to see is that larger suppliers complete their funding applications quickly. We have to realise that they usually have readily available all of the clerical support and expertise needed and that they receive the funding. That can leave insufficient funds for smaller suppliers that still have to meet the same requirements as the larger ones and that in many cases will need a longer time to prepare their applications because of a lack of clerical expertise and the resources to make the necessary changes to their plans to apply for the grants and of course to get their water and their water treatment plants to a standard that meets the changed requirements. 
We have to realise that it is always possible that the funding assistance could have been used for water schemes that would have happened anyway or for any necessary routine maintenance that should have happened many months ago—in some cases years ago. I saw some photos of plant that had not been well-maintained and although it may not have placed public health at risk it certainly made one wonder about the hydrated iron oxide or the iron oxide hydroxide content commonly known as rust—for the information of Mr David Bennett—that people are unknowingly being exposed to. 
We have to ask whether these suppliers will actually be applying for the financial assistance programme and of course we have to say that they will be. So we can see some challenges ahead for this particular programme but we are still very pleased to support it. 
We are pleased to see too that technical assistance will be available to all suppliers. Technical expertise and assistance is essential for the success of this legislation. Of course we need sufficiently trained people to enable this technical assistance to be available when it is requested. 
Just in wrapping up I would like to inform the National Party that according to the Ball report the occurrence of water-borne disease in New Zealand has been demonstrated by quite a number of studies. I quote: “Based on current available data two separate estimates of the burden of ” disease are “18000 and 34000 cases per annum.” That is significant. Preliminary results from work in progress suggest that those are underestimates and that is very very bad for us. 
So we in New Zealand First support this legislation. We are looking forward to working and seeing this legislation come into force because we know that clean wholesome drinking-water is absolutely essential for New Zealanders.