Blumsky Mark: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blumsky Mark: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11935] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I was not actually going to speak on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I was in the House doing a little bit of homework and started listening to the debate which is a tragedy in its own self in many respects. It came to me that I just want to share with members some facts about a trip I undertook as part of the local government team for the National Party. I am not on the Health Committee and have not had any involvement in this water debate. 
Last year I was travelling down south and visited some small rural councils in the Mackenzie country Waimate and Ashburton—that part of the world. It was quite an enjoyable trip because it was just after the dog microchipping debate. We had a lot of fun talking about the problems the Government had encountered with regard to that debate. We were also talking about waste because a select committee was doing a lot of work on waste. Those councils were very proud of the work they had done in waste minimisation and waste recovery. They were very proud of the fact that the work they had undertaken was having quite a significant impact and was not costing the ratepayer too much. In our conversations with the councils we started to talk about the issues that are confronting them given that they are doing so well in the areas I just mentioned. They all said that the problem they now have is the impost that the Government is putting on them—on small rural councils—in regard to standards. I asked what on earth they were talking about. They started to talk about water standards. That is when I first became aware of the bill we are currently debating. 
The issues that those councils could not come to grips with were quite simple. Those councils in many places have 30 or 40 bores or water sources that feed their population. They gave me an example of one water source that feeds seven farms. They made me aware of the fact that as part of the infrastructural demands of this legislation they would have to put in some significant infrastructure and a lot of money in order to bring the water that has been feeding those seven farms for many many years up to scratch as the new bill demands. They could not understand the need for that. The water has been feeding those seven farms for many many years. There has been no problem and no problem was expected. Yet they will have to put in infrastructure to the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to meet the requirements of this bill. The councils just could not understand the logic of doing that. 
One of the things we have not discussed or talked about in this Chamber is the situation when the water is not drinking water per se. The water source the council was going to have to bring up to scratch not only fills the teapot but also feeds the farm. The thing the councils made me aware of at the time is that this legislation brings water up to a standard that is not necessary—in this case for sure—to feed the crops. Ninety-eight percent of the water that comes out of that water source is to be used to water the crops; 2 percent is to be used to fill up the teapot. 
The councils could not really come to grips with the impost that this Government was putting on them in regard to that infrastructure. It is a whack on the ratepayer—it is a big whack on the ratepayer. I have heard the Minister talk about the $153 million or $154 million that he is putting into the pot to sweeten and soften the cost impost. I can tell the Minister now that he is hundreds of thousands of dollars light. Local government has made that clear. It has costed this measure it has done the homework and it knows that this will be a huge cost on it. 
This comes at a time when there has been a rates revolt around the country and it is at a time when the inquiry has come out and said that local government actually has the tools and that it is just overspending. It is just putting in gold-plated infrastructure. The inquiry led by David Shand was very clear when it stated that local government does not need to spend as much as it is spending. It said local government does not need to gold-plate everything so it should just cut back. So what does the Government do? The Government says to those people that it knows the councils have been feeding those farms and people have been drinking that water for hundreds of years just about but guess what it wants them to gold-plate the water supply. The Government wants them to gold-plate that water supply which will cost the councils a lot more and can members guess who pays? The ratepayer pays. And can members guess what happens? There is a rates revolt. That just does not seem fair. 
I go back to Tony Ryall’s comments when he made it clear that we should let the locals sort out the local solution that they need in order to bring their water up to standard. As the councils said to me at the time they do not need to invest tens of thousands of dollars in order to put this water in; they just need to buy a filter for each tap so that when people fill up the teapot with water from the tap the water is of good enough quality. Thank you Madam Chairperson.