Blue Jackie: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Blue Jackie: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11933] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 That was a wonderful contribution by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Was it not a fascinating submission from the former Mayor of Rangitikei? He tried to work out what was going on in his community in the face of these strange numbers he was hearing about and reading about. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research was not investigating 50 percent of them. That is the science—that is the unreliability of the data we have. Yet we now have a bill with costs ranging from $75 million up to $800 million. We do not know the size of the problem or indeed whether there is a problem.  
I agree with my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Local communities should have a say in the level of risk they carry. There should be local solutions for local problems. The local community should have a say. They are having no say with this bill which is so bureaucratic so heavy-handed and so micro-managing to the nth degree. They will be completely rolled by this bill. In fact the financial cost is so considerable that it will be detrimental to the functioning of local communities. 
Local Government New Zealand was vehement in its opposition to the bill as I have said before. It was totally vehement. Local Government New Zealand is a defender of local communities and local standards. Surely if it felt that this bill should be passed it would have backed it. Local Government New Zealand staff huddled with the officials and amendments were made. I will talk about some of those amendments shortly. But after all the discussions and all the toing and froing Local Government New Zealand is still principally opposed to this bill. That says it all. And the Mayor of Rangitikei’s submission says it all. 
Our own investigations of the problem of water-borne diseases also confirm the fact that we have not had outbreaks of cholera and typhoid. We have not had deaths. In fact the submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research showed only four cases in the last decade and of those four cases there is only one—that of Cardrona ski field—that I could say was probably a valid and legitimate claim. 
Some amendments were made to the bill. There is a new category for rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers with much more flexible obligations in respect of their drinking-water standards. There is a new definition called “neighbourhood drinking-water supply” which is based on the number of people it supplies. Generally speaking suppliers serving fewer people are given more time to comply. Time lines are staggered up to 2012 before suppliers face legal action if they do not comply. There is also a new definition called “temporary drinking-water supplier” which applies to temporary events such as music festivals and school farm camps. This was defined so it would not capture small shearing gangs visiting a property. The time lines have been changed so that the suppliers can align themselves with the Local Government Act 2002. 
There was a response to the concern which many people expressed that there were going to be significant upgrades and that suppliers would have to include that in their local planning. There is a new definition of “all practicable steps” which the councils must take to implement the standards to include affordability. That has also been defined. The bureaucracy this bill creates is absolutely staggering. It is actually mind-blowing. A whole new sector is being evolved and job creation is evolving out of this bill. 
In Part 1 there is a whole section about drinking-water assessors and designated officers. There are a number of amendments that relate to these particular people and to these new jobs that have been created out of this bill and this bureaucracy. The drinking-water assessors are appointed by the Director-General of Health. They assess the performance of drinking-water suppliers notify designated officers—which is another new job that is created—and drinking-water suppliers on any non-compliance and provide information to the Deputy-General of Health. They assess the competence of persons to analyse samples of raw water or drinking water and to calibrate equipment and so on and so on. There are a number of amendments about drinking-water assessors and designated officers. 
The job of “designated officer” is as I said a new job. Designated officers have a number of functions. They have to check that the directions of the drinking-water assessors are complied with. These designated officers also have quite wide-ranging powers. With all this new bureaucracy and the proliferation of new personnel there has to be a process to review the decisions of drinking-water assessors and a register of drinking-water assessors and so on. Is it any wonder that the estimates on this bill have absolutely bloomed? We have heard about them as being a moving feast. As the Health Committee heard first it was $50 million then it was wide ranging up to $275 million.