Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11938] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call in the debate on Part 2 which is quite a wide part. It refers to responsibility for local government in respect of restricting water supply. It restricts water supply in a number of circumstances related mainly to the non-payment of costs. The wider issue of costs to consumers and the ability to pay is important. Similarly Part 2 contains information about meetings in respect of notifications from territorial authorities on land information memoranda. It also includes the revocation of the former Water Supplies Protection Regulations which is an issue because it raises the level of disparity of standards and in the schedule there is a discussion about various changes to those standards. 
National is particularly concerned about the costs to local government associated with these changes particularly as the supplier to various water schemes. Throughout the submission process on this bill we heard a wide and divergent number of views on the costs that this legislation will have on local government as a water supplier. The reason that the cost burden on the supplier is important is that in most cases those costs will be transferred either to the ratepayer or to the user of the water through whatever mechanism—charging—a local authority or water supplier might use. 
The costs have been quite variant. When the bill was introduced we heard that the costs were between $50 million and $250 million which is quite a significant variation. We had further advice from the officials that the costs could be up to $300 million; then Local Government New Zealand estimated the cost to be much closer to $800 million. If the cost is at the higher level of that range that would have a significant impact on communities and that is the reason National members have asked this question of the Minister: “What does the Government think the cost to water schemes to comply will now be?”. 
We have also asked the Government where the problem here is. We have asked it to please provide us with the data and the information that shows there is a significant public health risk associated with these changes. Our experience in the Health Committee was that the information being supplied to justify that is not reliable. We state in our minority view that the public does want good-quality water but that it is a trade-off because there is a cost associated with the various levels of quality and we have wanted the Government to give us an indication on those costs. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Where did the $154 million come from? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We do not know where that came from. Is this the $154 million in terms of the subsidy? 
Mark Blumsky 
: Yes. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well that is another set of figures that the Minister has not yet taken a call on to discuss. 
I would also like the Government to talk about what impact this legislation will have if it is passed as amended. There is no doubt that some useful amendments have been made to the legislation that if it is to pass will make it more workable. But I wonder whether the Government will explain to us what the burden will be on a person in a lifestyle block or in a farming community who supplies water to his or her neighbours. What will the liabilities and obligations on such people be? I suspect that not one member of the Government has been in a position whereby he or she has taken water from a neighbour’s bore. Many members on this side of the Chamber including myself have been in the position of getting our domestic water supply and the supply for our block from our neighbour who had a bore. A pipe comes across it is connected to one’s system and one is on. It is a very neighbourly arrangement. I did not really pay for it. I maybe gave the neighbour a couple of bottles of wine at the end of the year. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Whisky? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. It was a very neighbourly arrangement—and that is repeated throughout the whole of the country. I wonder whether a Government member would take a call to explain the original requirements on that person before the legislation was changed and what the requirements on people who are supplying water to their neighbours on a friendly basis are now. I think members will be surprised to know that when this bill was first introduced there were going to be significant burdens on such parties.