Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11942] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In taking a call on clauses 1 to 3 in particular I would like to talk not only about the wider principles associated with the bill but also about the commencement date and the ability a future Government might have in order to have a more flexible and phased implementation of this legislation if the costs require. We heard a very interesting debate from members on the National Party side highlighting the major areas of concern we have with this bill. We have been concerned about the fact that the Government cannot give us a firm indication about the cost of this bill as amended to local governments and other water suppliers throughout New Zealand. As members have said the original advice in the bill in its regulatory statements attached to the bill was that this would cost between up to $50 million to $250 million. The select committee was subsequently advised that it would be more in the vicinity of $300 million and Local Government New Zealand came forward and estimated $800 million. Since that time there have been some changes to the bill which I think in many ways will mitigate some of that cost. But the Government has been unable to provide us with any indication of what those costs would be. 
The second area that we have sought information from the Government on is a further clarification of the problem that the Government is seeking to cure. Of course everybody is in favour of safe drinking-water but the question is at what cost and whether the current drinking-water is unsafe. 
We asked the Government to provide us with evidence of drinking-water diseases and the consequences of them. Some members opposite gave us standard numbers that have been trotted out from time to time. But we were able to refer to the evidence of Bob Buchanan the Mayor of Rangitikei District which cast some doubt over those statistics when he talked about the fact that his district had indicated in official data that it had some sort of epidemic of water-borne diseases and his research found that even the people collecting the data said that only half of it was ever investigated or confirmed. 
So there really is an issue here of what the problem is and what it will cost. We have not had any answers to those questions from the Government at this stage. Having said that I think some sensible changes have been made in the select committee that mitigate the worst elements of this bill. There is increasing flexibility about neighbourly water supplies. I notice that the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven called it a grace and favour water supply. I thought that was very unusual. “Grace and favour” is a rather regal phrase I say to the Minister. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I thought that was your phrase. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No we never use the words “grace and favour”. Goodness me! That is a rather regal phrase. I get my water from my neighbour through grace and favour! Grace and favour is— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It’s a Taranaki phrase. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is a Taranaki phrase! Some changes have been made to those who get their water through grace and favour from their neighbours and I think those are more flexible arrangements. But I thought the Minister’s comments about— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Farmers use that term all the time. Is the member not aware of that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh rubbish! They absolutely do not. There are some changes that I think will be sensible. I must admit though that on hearing the Minister’s description earlier about the Building Act and all these obligations I was a little worried about what was going to happen with that. Also I think the very good amendments that have been made by the select committee are the changes that will allow a future Government a more flexible time line for the phasing in of the various requirements that were put in. I think they will be useful amendments to allow that to happen. I think the Government will find that this is going to be a lot more expensive than it thinks. The Government will not actually put a number on it. I invite the Minister in the chair who I must say should be congratulated on at least trying to participate in the debate and convey some information to get some advice on what are the expected costs to local governments and water suppliers because it goes to the heart of the bill. Everyone wants quality but depending on the quality it is a cost. Surely local communities should be able to make the decision about what level of quality suits them and is in their best interests. For a Government that talks about its close relationship with local government it is remarkably ignorant of local government’s view.