Gallagher Martin: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11887] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I agree with Jill Pettis who has just interjected that there was no passion in the previous speech by Jackie Blue. I do not think that Dr Blue in her heart of hearts really believes the speech notes she was given. I would have assumed that as a medical doctor her driving passion would be public health. I also find it ironic that there is another medical doctor in the Chamber from Northcote whom I would have thought would also be driven by the need for public health. 
You know those members are from the party that if it had the opportunity—just watch this space—would sell off water in this country and make it a private good not a public good. National would be in so fast with every French Japanese or American private water company that members would not believe it. Did members think National members would sit here for 9 years 10 years or 15 years in Opposition as some sort of version of “Labour-lite” saying that they are lovely and wonderful and that they really care? Do members honestly think that National’s policy thinktanks are not looking at the tradable commodity of water? Members should look at what National did in respect of electricity. Do members honestly think that in the next cut should we ever have the misfortune of having a National-led Government water will not come up for contention? National members are not shaking their heads; they are actually smiling with embarrassment because they know they have had exactly those kinds of conversations. 
National says that it is for private enterprise. If it was given half a chance it would roll back the barriers even further and we would not be having this kind of public health debate. In a future Parliament we would literally be having a debate about who exactly should own and run the water supply in this country. 
I compliment the Minister Pete Hodgson and the Government on this bill. It is a needed bill. I compliment the Health Committee on the work it did. Hamilton has an excellent water supply. I take my hat off to the Hamilton City Council. It does a wonderful job. 
David Bennett 
: Hear hear! 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: In fact I think David Bennett was with me and Sue Moroney just a wee while ago at the opening of a water plant in my electorate. I guess that when one lives in a place like Hamilton one takes for granted safe secure World Health Organization - standard water when one turns on the tap. I guess that coming from a wonderful city like Hamilton we do indeed take that for granted. 
As previous speakers have said we take for granted the thought that New Zealand has the purest water in the world. The Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is not about the wonderful image we have of beautiful streams and that kind of thing; it is actually about water coming out of people’s taps from various community drinking-water schemes. 
It may come as a surprise to many New Zealanders to learn that their community water supplies have been virtually unregulated. Indeed New Zealand is unusual amongst First World countries in that we rely on largely voluntary measures to protect the safety of our water. [ 
Interruption 
] Someone says that I should put a bit of passion into it. I am putting passion into it. My passion is never to allow the other lot on the other side of this House ever to get near the Treasury benches where they would start to privatise this country’s drinking water. They know in their heart of hearts that if they were given the chance that is exactly what they would love to do. 
This bill is very important. At the moment we rely largely on voluntary measures to protect the safety of our drinking water in this country. New Zealanders accept regulation to ensure the safety of food and discretionary consumer goods but drinking water—a commodity that people have little choice but to accept from the local supplier—relies for its safety on the goodwill and voluntary actions of the body that runs the water supply. The point of this bill if you like is to get a more consistent standard of water supply throughout the country. 
I am interested to know whether if one lives in a blue-chip suburb somewhere in Auckland where one can take quality drinking-water for granted one does not relate much to people in smaller communities where that right is not guaranteed. 
I acknowledge the work of the Health Committee. The committee’s notes state the fact that New Zealand has relatively high rates of largely preventable gastroenteric diseases. The campylobacteriosis rate in New Zealand is twice that of England and three times that of Australia and Canada. I am not the scholar that the previous speaker is so I ask members to forgive me if I mispronounced the word—although any medical doctor would understand what it is. 
This is not a laughing matter. We cannot say: “Look it’s not really a risk. Is it really worth the cost?”. It is a serious public health issue. We do not represent the poorer areas of Calcutta. We are and aspire to be a First World country. If the other crowd opposite came to power they would be happy to have a First World drinking-water supply in the blue-chip suburbs of Auckland but a Third World drinking supply in some of the smaller communities of New Zealand. We do not have that belief. They would really worry that it was too expensive. They will be all right but some other communities will not be. 
Indeed the disease I was talking about is just one of the potential water-borne diseases in New Zealand. I know that the member for Hamilton East is listening intently and seriously at the moment. I thank him for that; he is taking this issue very seriously. Campylobacteriosis can involve fever headache abdominal pain nausea vomiting and as many as 10 watery often bloody bowel movements daily. The symptoms may persist for a week and prolonged illness or relapses may occur in adults. Jackie Blue did not tell us that. She is a medical doctor and I am a lay person but I think I should commit this information and make the contribution to the debate in this Chamber. 
National members say that the burden of disease is actually more of a problem for rural communities. Well I am sorry but that is just not good enough. For a party that proclaims to have some sort of aspiration to represent rural communities better than those on this side of the House I find that statement ironic. Do National members remember the slogans “one law for all” and “one New Zealand for all”? We say that there should be one standard of drinking water for all. 
I take this opportunity in the closing stages of my contribution to acknowledge the significant changes and additions that have been made to the bill. I note the comments on page 2 in particular of the report into the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I thank the Health Committee for the very good work it did. I notice that it has gone through the bill and refined and improved it. For example the following amendments have been made to the bill. The suppliers who are implementing an approved public health risk management plan are deemed to comply with the requirement to take all practical steps to comply with the drinking-water standards. The committee has suggested longer time frames for compliance in order to align with Local Government Act 2002 processes and the creation of a new category of drinking-water supply called a rural agriculture drinking-water supply with different and more flexible obligations. 
 The committee tried to look at the micro-practicalities of the legislation but the bottom line is that there should be one standard of drinking water for all. We hear about “one law for all” so how about “one World Health Organization – standard drinking-water for all”? Incidentally this Government and a number of parties in the House are committed to the public ownership and control of drinking water in this country.