Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I would like to rise to speak to a number of the issues raised by learned members. The first issue I want to address is that raised by Mr Brownlee who reflected on Part 1 clause 6 and the notification period. For the benefit of the House—it's one sentence I'll just read it out—the new law would say: Drinking-water standards (and any amendments to those standards) come into force on a day specified in a notice under section 69Q(1) that is at least 28 days after the date of publication of that notice in the Gazette." Really it is quite a simple clause that has no mystery it has no secret agenda. It is merely specifying a period of notice. In fact the bill doesn't change at all what the standards will say just the notice period. I think that's probably the point Mr Brownlee is seeking clarification on. He raised a grand conspiracy theory about enforced chlorination and so on. Hon Gerry Brownlee: No will the standards—Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: He may rise to take another call to clarify if I've misunderstood him but then again he may be satisfied with the brevity and clarity of my answer. The issue here is that we do need to make sure that our standards are updated in a timely fashion because when we've got a public health issue when we've got people getting crook and we can prevent it that is what we believe on this side of the House we should be doing. Indeed this bill is being supported across the House—and I thank Mr Brownlee as the shadow Leader of the House for his party's support of the bill. I think it is important that we can react in a timely fashion when there are public health outbreaks and that we can change standards if evidence comes that suggests we need to do things in a different way. I just want to give one example which is around chicken. New Zealanders often in the past have gotten sick as a result of eating poorly cooked or prepared chicken and there's been some evidence around public health risks of chickens that haven't been appropriately looked after through the food preparation process. I know that I reflect when I talk with other people—often if they've got a tummy bug they think "Have I eaten something bad? Have I eaten something wrong? Have I inadvertently at a pot luck dinner or at a late night takeaway partaken of something that's made me crook?"Hon Kris Faafoi: Why was he looking at me? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The first thing often that people's minds go to—no reflection on the member Mr Faafoi when I talk about chicken. The issue is about food safety; this is about safety of the things we are putting in our bodies. I think as New Zealanders we are very well aware of the risks of food but historically we have been less aware of the risks of water. The Havelock North report brought this very sharply into focus and said actually—what is clear in Havelock North is that even though nominally that water met the existing standard and had passed a recent test it clearly was not safe. It was not safe water. People got sick they were unwell some people potentially lost their lives—there are deaths connected to that outbreak four deaths. Also people have suffered from disability as a result. We no matter who's in Government need to address this issue because it is a matter of public safety and public health. So that is what we're doing here in terms of changing the consultation period is making sure that we can put changes in place in a timely way but still with an appropriate consultation period. It was deemed that the previous periods listed in the legislation were unnecessarily long. They were focused from a past era. Indeed when the legislation was brought into play in its most recent form under the last Labour Government it was world-leading. But of course time has elapsed since then and we now have these examples of people getting ill. One of the other things that becomes clear in the Havelock North report in one of the appendices is that since the Havelock North outbreak and before the publication of the report there were dozens and dozens of reports of bad water throughout New Zealand in our newspapers in the media and so on. But as a country we don't seem to be joining those dots; we don't seem to recognise that this is actually a systemic problem. We have not had the necessary standards in place. We haven't updated our water systems standards in the way that overseas jurisdictions have. As I say when the last Labour Government put this legislation in place it was world-leading. Now we recognise that these standards need updating because the world has moved on. There are higher water standards in Europe for example. People face great fines if they don't implement water standards that ensure the safety of the population. The other interesting thing in all of this of course is that we want this to be true across the country but it needs to be affordably so because all of us who live in the regions want to be safe no matter where we travel. Those of us who live in cities want to be safe when we drink the water in a small provincial town. Those of us in small provincial towns want safe water when we go to cities. We need standards that are acceptable that are widely consulted on and that are put in place in a timely fashion.I want to address the point raised by Angie Warren-Clark and Dr Liz Craig. Both of them raised the issue of affordability. Under section 69H(3)(b) of the Act at present a person who wishes to use affordability as a reason for a step not being practicable only needs to tell a drinking-water assessor or designated officer that it is not affordable. That is prioritised over other reasons for upgrading the water that's provided. The select committee itself recommended replacing that section to require a person who wants to use unaffordability as a reason for not undertaking a step to actually provide evidence showing that the step is not affordable and to justify why it is not practicable to take the step. So there's a new test proposed. I haven't as yet and I do wish to thank the select committee for their work on this because the bill has come back to the House with some modest but useful changes including making sure that the priority across those different tests that come into force is taken away so that affordability is no longer a trump card that can be pulled out. People actually have to demonstrate that this is an unreasonable thing to have to do to upgrade the water because for the simple reason that we want to ensure that our water is of quite high quality. We don't want to give people a place to hide when it's not reasonable to continue to deliver poor quality water.So I think that addresses the two issues that have been raised so far. If it hasn't I expect members will raise further concerns or points of clarification. But the important thing to stress in all of this is that this is largely process we're talking about here. This is about making sure—Hon Aupito William Sio: I just want to know who created the mess.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —and process is important—I hear the member. Process is important to make sure that we're doing this in a way that actually involves proper consultation but is not unnecessarily hindered by an arbitrary slow time frame that would mean people might continue to get ill when we should be addressing the water standards and updating them so that they get to the world's best practice and ensure the safety of our citizens."