Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I thank the member Shane Jones because I think these are very important matters to have clarification on. The Health Act 1956 provides a defence where a water supplier has taken all practicable steps as the member outlines to prevent the commission of certain offences. Now I'm advised that section 69H of the Act provides a definition of all practicable steps" and there are six components in the current definition with two—availability and affordability—given precedence over the other four and the nature and severity of harm is one of the four lower-ranked criteria. Now clearly where we have that ramping and where that is being used as a reason not to upgrade water supply and we have people being harmed—where we have evidence of harm such as we had at Havelock North—there is a situation that needs to be remedied. Now this sits in balance with the point the member raised earlier around ensuring that common sense is applied here to make sure that we're not imposing administrative burden or unnecessary tests on councils that can't afford such tests if they apply—well sorry councils might not be the example but small suppliers are examples of people supplying their own water to their own home for example where we know that that might just be a bridge too far. But where it is true that people are supplying a product—exactly as we do with food where we have food safety standards to the public—we want assurance that the product that is being supplied is not going to make them ill. So having a test which raises availability and affordability above the tests for the nature and severity of harm can lead to perverse outcomes I would contest and that is the reason I think that the select committee wrestled with this and made the recommendation that these things all be put on a level footing so that we actually have a good debate about these things. So we're not saying that affordability and availability is not something that should be taken into account. Indeed it should because there would be no point in turning off a water supply that supplied people healthy water and left them parched or unable to have a water supply basic to their health. But equally when we have a supply that's supplying a large number of people and is potentially going to cause widespread outbreak of illness we don't want that situation ever when there is something that can be done about that through the upgrading of the water to meet contemporary supply standards. Now at one level this seems really obvious but it is incredibly important to get this right because we can see that the standards that we had in place and the situation we had in the lead-up to the Havelock North situation were ineffective. It was a tragedy. And arguably it was because the eye had been taken off the ball. When I became the Minister of Health there were fewer than three people dedicated to water in the Ministry of Health. Now water is our most fundamental I would argue—one of our most fundamental inputs into our lives. Without it we die. But the eye had been taken off the ball and that becomes obviously evident in the report. I mean I have a copy here with me. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We're not debating the report. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: It's a thick report. I was just going to make the point that I'm not going to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We're actually debating the legislation. If we could get on to the legislation.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: But to come back to the point: that report made absolutely clear the consequences of not having this legislation right. It lays bare the risks that we run by not getting the balance right between availability and severity of harm and that is the historic situation we've inherited. As a Government we are committed to tackling those intergenerational issues the big problems that we've inherited. This is another significant issue we've inherited as a Government and we are determined to make sure we get the balance right.Now I do want acknowledge that the Health Committee has played a really constructive role in refining this legislation and I want to thank the members—the chair Louisa Wall and the other members of the committee many of whom have spoken in this debate—for their contributions to ensuring that the wording is right in this legislation so that the test balances those different factors. The defence of all practicable steps needs to be borne out with a weighing up of availability affordability and the nature and severity of harm. So I thank the committee members and I hope that clarifies for the member."