Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a great pleasure to rise and take a call on this stage of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to remind the committee of how we got here. We are looking specifically at a way to solve the terrible effects of the Havelock North disaster in which thousands of people were affected and I believe a number of people lost their lives. So it's really important that we look at the infrastructure and I guess the question is—at the time I understand the member Lawrence Yule was the mayor of the community so he would know and hence why across the other side of the Chamber they are very keen to see this—the effects on that community and what actually happened. So it would be pretty awful for him to have had that experience but also we're here fixing it aren't we?I'd like to speak on section 69H in clause 4A. I'd like to talk about taking all practicable steps". So what essentially has happened—and I'd like to ask the Minister in the chair Dr David Clark whether he'd like to expand upon this but what I'll do is read through the legislation as it currently is and then ask the questions. So essentially this part is about the person having to take all practical steps "to achieve that result that it is reasonably practicable to take in the circumstances" but then they need to take into account the following things and in weighing up. So this is where people have previously said "Yes we're aware that we need to do this but sorry it was too expensive." or "We can't do it." So the test becomes the nature and severity of the harm that may be suffered if the result is not achieved.So what is the effect of not acting—"(b) the current state of knowledge about the likelihood that harm of that nature and severity will be suffered if the result is not achieved;" Now the reason I say that that particular one is important is that we know of risks that sit in different communities. These local governments are aware I'm certain so therefore they need to be taking into account the likelihood of that harm—the nature and the severity. I'm sure if we reflect on Havelock North there was a clear discovery upon this system failing that this is a really severe response and I'm sure from now on there will not be I guess a casual "Oh yes well we must look into that at some time." "(c) the current state of knowledge about harm of that nature;"—so these are all added too—"and (d) the current state of knowledge about the means available to achieve the result and about the likely efficacy of each; and (3) their availability;"—and then the final one—"and (f) their affordability in light of the person's financial position."And I really like what has happened in this further part which says OK so we look at the test of affordability but we don't just say that the person can't afford it and therefore it doesn't happen; we actually put in place in this piece of legislation the test around what it is so that if they can't afford to do this act then they must provide full and complete records of their financial position and they must as soon as practicable not more than 28 days produce evidence and the step-by-step process they have gone through in order to say that they cannot afford this change. So I would just like it—I'm about to finish my call—if the Minister is able to speak to that and the reason as to why we were very clearly putting this test in place around affordability. Thank you Madam Chair."