Blue Jackie: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11927] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 It was very interesting listening to the Minister take a call. If he thinks the National Party for whatever reason is taking a wrong unethical or amoral position why is it—I ask the Minister though he has gone he has fled the Chamber; I am sorry I should not say that—that local government has such vehement opposition to this bill? Local government members came in front of the Health Committee and their submissions were absolutely vehement. They were firmly opposed to the bill for its cost to local communities and particularly to rural communities. Those local government members are the defenders of communities so surely if they felt this bill was valid was right and was there to help communities they would be backing it to the hilt. Even when they got into a huddle with officials—and there was lots of consultation back and forth letters written and meetings—they still after all the amendments remained principally opposed to this bill and I think that says a lot. 
Their main opposition was the cost. The bill puts far too much cost and a burden on to ratepayers and it is the local rural communities that will carry the burden. As Jonathan Coleman said the bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. We had these widely varying estimates of what the bill will cost. First of all the figure was $50 million and then it ranged from $50 million up to $275 million. It was staggering; the numbers kept going up. At the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association conference in 2006 the estimate went up to $300 million. There was no stopping it in sight. Then the local government people told us in the select committee that no it was none of those figures; it was nearer $800 million. That is a phenomenal amount of money and no wonder eyes were widening and everyone was being incredibly surprised by the figures that were coming in to us. 
No affordability of this bill has been factored in; there has been no common sense. Nor has the effect been factored in of how the bill will affect small suppliers who in many ways are doing a community service by helping out their neighbours with local water supplies. What will they do in the face of this huge cost compliance and bureaucratic machine coming their way? They will simply turn the tap off. Who will pay the penalty for that? It will be local rural communities. We had a number of examples of small councils that will have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars per head of their population. 
Jo Goodhew made a very good comment in the second reading of the bill when she referred to Pete Hodgson’s comment in the first reading that water can never be made completely safe but that on the other hand he wants ratepayers to foot the bill for something we cannot reduce the risk of and for something we cannot ever make completely safe. It just seems ironical. 
National does not oppose clean safe drinking-water. Water is essential to life and we believe that New Zealanders should have access to safe and clean water but this bill is not the vehicle to give it. This bill is not going to work. Its cost to local communities will completely bog the mechanism. 
There has been very little evidence that New Zealanders have had any problems with water-borne diseases. Members on the other side keep bringing up overseas examples like Milwaukee and talking about campylobacter in food. But chickens carry campylobacter; it is not often water-borne at all. When the Institute of Environmental Science and Research did a presentation to our select committee it was actually quite revealing. One would think that we had had typhoid and cholera epidemics galore and that hundreds of people had died but in actual fact the examples given were over 20 or 30 years old and for the last decade only four cases were presented to the Health Committee. 
One case occurred in 2001 at a rural school in Hawke’s Bay where there was a problem with faeces from cattle getting into the source water. Apparently the problem there was an ultraviolet machine that had not been working. The second example was in Banks Peninsula in 2004 and the problem there was an effluent pipe in a septic tank that had broken down and was discharging into a spring-fed drinking-water supply. There was a third example at a Nelson camp in 2004 but when I read through the actual detail I saw that a link could never be proved so that really was not an issue. I agreed with only one case that of the Cardrona ski field in 2006 and that was a legitimate issue. There was a problem with the effluent overflow that went into a stream and the drinking-water supply was not registered. The treatment comprised filtration and ultraviolet treatment but the cartridge did not comply with the requirements of drinking-water standards.