Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11868] 
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill has been reported back from the Health Committee which recommended that it be passed with amendment. I thank the committee for its careful and extended consideration of the bill. 
The bill was introduced back in June last year largely to deal with the risk posed to the over half a million New Zealanders receiving water from community drinking-water supplies that do not meet the New Zealand drinking-water standards. The bill builds on the Government’s overall drinking-water strategy but it marks something of a departure from an emphasis on encouraging rigid compliance with standards and represents a move towards a more flexible risk-management approach. At the same time the bill brings in legal duties as opposed to the current situation with purely voluntary standards. With these duties also comes substantial assistance from central government. The Drinking-water Assistance Programme allocates over $150 million of technical and capital assistance to drinking-water suppliers in order to help them to manage the risks associated with their water supply. 
The drinking-water standards were developed for a reason. Most other developed countries have minimum standards in law providing specifications as to what constitutes water that is safe to drink. The New Zealand standards are based on the World Health Organization guidelines. When the water now going to half a million Kiwis does not meet standards it is for a reason—such as faecal contamination. 
The risk from water is manifested in two main ways. First we have the highly visible outbreaks. New Zealand has on average 16.8 water-borne disease outbreaks a year which affect a total of 100 or 200 people. However the much larger problem is the individual cases. Rather than an identified and quick obvious cluster of cases the problem I am talking about here is that of individuals getting sick from their water and often not even realising that water was the cause of their illness. These cases are the iceberg lurking below the surface; they do not attract much publicity but the Institute of Environmental Science and Research estimates that there are 18000 to 34000 such cases in New Zealand every year. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research expects that further work will reveal this to be an underestimate. 
Since I introduced the bill we have had new figures on drinking-water quality. The annual review of drinking-water quality in New Zealand released in January showed that there are still over half a million Kiwis receiving water from supplies that do not comply with standards. Also agreeing with us is the OECD which in April called on New Zealand to bring in minimum standards. Although recognising the recent improvements in the proportion of the public water supply that fully complies with drinking-water guidelines the OECD stressed that further progress would require nationally consistent and legally binding drinking-water quality standards. The Consumers Institute of New Zealand added its voice to the chorus this year by urging that the bill be passed as soon as possible. 
At the same time since the introduction of this bill several events in the real world have underlined the need for action. For example in February there were two separate incidents where sewage leaked into Lake Wakatipu the drinking-water source for one of New Zealand’s premier tourist destinations. This spill came on the back of two other spills in Queenstown in 2004. One of the 2004 spills was of particular concern as it entered the lake about 30 metres from Queenstown’s water-supply intake. Luckily on those occasions the water supply did not appear to have been contaminated but we should bear in mind that it was a sewage spill like this that was suspected to be connected with an outbreak in Queenstown back in 1984 which resulted in an estimated 3500 people becoming sick with some hospitalisations and half of the town’s children being too ill to attend school. It is worth noting that the Queenstown water supply still provides no protection against pathogens such as cryptosporidium. The source of the supply is still a high-risk one. There have been a number of other contamination events around the country since the bill was introduced many of which have resulted in consumers needing to boil their water to ensure its safety. 
Since the bill’s introduction the Health Committee has had a highly fruitful submission process which has resulted in a number of improvements made to the bill. Many local councils that run drinking-water supplies were concerned about the potential for the bill to interfere with their planning processes and priorities under the Local Government Act. I acknowledge in particular the huge amount of work that Local Government New Zealand has put in to examining the bill and working with the select committee to come up with constructive suggestions for improvement. This has occurred not only at a national level but also at a local level where mayors and their councils have made the effort to appear before the select committee and to attend special meetings around the country to work through the issues. 
One of the key amendments recommended by the select committee as a result of this process is an adjustment to the duty on suppliers to take all practicable steps to comply with the New Zealand drinking-water standards. I should note at the outset that this duty in keeping with the bill’s focus on risk management rather than rigid compliance was not an absolute duty in the introduced bill. It did not state that the supplier must comply with the standards; it said that the supplier must take all practicable steps to comply. This echoed the approach used in the Health and Safety in Employment Act which does not state that employers must ensure the safety of their employees; rather they must take all practicable steps to ensure their safety. Accidents happen but an employer or a drinking-water supplier must be prudent. 
The select committee’s amendment gives suppliers more certainty as to what they need to do by saying that if they have a public health risk-management plan and if they are implementing this plan they are deemed to be taking all practicable steps to comply with the standards. This means that a supplier knows in advance what it has to do. 
Another key amendment recommended by the committee is an adjustment to the dates at which suppliers become subject to the bill’s legal duties. The bill as introduced has a staggered timetable. Larger suppliers are generally already meeting the bill’s requirements so an earlier compliance date for them is appropriate. Smaller suppliers need more time so the bill as introduced gave them until 2012 before the legal duties started to apply. Local Government New Zealand was concerned about the compatibility of these dates with its planning process under the Local Government Act. The select committee has thus recommended an adjustment to those dates that will give suppliers between 1 and 2 additional years. 
A further amendment from the committee to which I want to draw the House’s attention would lead to the creation of a special category of drinking-water supply to allow for the special circumstances of rural agricultural drinking-water supplies. The bill as introduced provided flexibility for such supplies to employ efficient solutions. For example if treatment were necessary then the supply could use point-of-entry treatment for each house on the supply. 
I need to touch on another of the committee’s recommendations which is to introduce the concept of affordability as a consideration when determining whether a supplier is complying with the bill’s duties in relation to the drinking-water standards. As I have already said the duty to comply with the standards is not an absolute one; instead suppliers are required to take all practicable steps to comply. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill I say that the National Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed to it because firstly it puts an undue burden on the consumers and ratepayers of New Zealand; secondly we believe that the Government has overestimated the health issues associated with drinking water around the country; and thirdly we believe that the Government has no appreciation of the practicalities of how its proposals will affect New Zealand communities. 
The first thing National in Opposition did when this bill came forward was to look at the costings involved with the burden that this legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers. If one were to take a step back one would find that the most interesting thing about this bill is the continual opposition of Local Government New Zealand to this legislation. This is a Government that apparently prides itself on listening to and consulting with Local Government New Zealand yet it is pushing through this legislation in the face of opposition from that organisation. This opposition was expressed as recently as in the last few days when the president of Local Government New Zealand Basil Morrison expressed considerable concern about the cost burden that the legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers quite unnecessarily. 
To go back to the cost I say that the Government’s original estimate on the cost to ratepayers was as low as $50 million. But it originally advised the Health Committee that its estimate was between $50 million and $275 million. So that is the estimate—between $50 million and $275 million! But wait for this we subsequently heard at the Health Committee from the Ministry of Health staff that the 2006 Water and Wastes Association Conference increased the estimate to $300 million. So it is no wonder that the National Party Local Government New Zealand and large numbers of ratepayers and consumers are saying that this bill which has not proven its necessity in any way will be a significant cost on New Zealand ratepayers of in the Government’s estimate anywhere between $50 million and $300 million. We suspect that it is at the much higher end because Local Government New Zealand advised the select committee that the bill as introduced could have cost up to $800 million in terms of the burden that councils and local government would have to face despite the fact that there is no strong argument that the public is necessarily at risk. The officials gave us various numbers on cryptosporidium and campylobacter but these are things that are also borne on food and are not necessarily related to water supplies and the select committee received some quite significant evidence on that matter. 
A very good story was brought to us by a mayor of one of the communities. I think he was the mayor of Feilding. He said that he got all this evidence of several hundred people in his community contracting various illnesses because of drinking water. He actually tried to locate where those cases happened and he could not do it. That is my recollection of the advice that we got at the select committee—and I can see that Dr Coleman agrees with that. So we do not think these numbers are as good as we would like them to be. Certainly when the Government gives an estimate that it could be anywhere between $50 million and $300 million we know that there are some real problems associated with this bill. Having said that I point out that the National members on the select committee have worked to try to improve the situation for consumers and ratepayers. We have managed to convince the Government that if it is going to push this legislation through then it should make affordability an important part of it. We managed to convince the Government that very small water schemes should not be subject to the level of oversight and cost burden that was originally proposed. 
It became clear from listening to Government members on the select committee that they had no appreciation of how small community water supplies work in rural communities. The burden that was going to be proposed by this legislation was significant. When I lived in a rural community at Thornton Beach I got my water from my neighbour who had a bore. I was his only customer other than his cows. The costs restrictions burdens and obligations that would have applied under this legislation to the chap who supplied me with my water would be significant. 
We had a very good case study come from a lady in Pauatahanui near Wellington—near Porirua. She came and talked about the seven or eight neighbours who relied on the spring on her property. She supplied the water to these people. As she took us through her understanding of the obligations and the burdens that she would face it became clear that there would be significant risk to many people not from the quality of the water but from the fact that the supplier would turn the tap off because the obligations and burdens would be so significant. 
I think that we worked well on our committee to make sure that those sorts of remedies could be fixed. But even with those changes Local Government New Zealand remains opposed to this legislation. It is strongly concerned about the costs it would put on ratepayers and water consumers. The question that has to be asked is this. When this is a Government that so prides itself on working constructively with Local Government New Zealand why is it continuing to push through legislation that Local Government New Zealand says will be costly quite unnecessary and way beyond the risks that are applied to consumers? 
During the rest of this debate the National members who contribute will be taking the House through not only the cost issues and the uncertainty and the difficulties with that but they will be taking the House through the concerns we have about some of the health evidence given to the committee that tried to describe the level of the risk. Thirdly we are going to touch on the fact that Local Government New Zealand—which the Government so prides itself on having a good relationship with—was strongly opposed to much of what has been proposed in this legislation. National members will also touch on improvements that would be beneficial including the fact that amendments have been made to enable a future Government to have timelines that might better reflect the ability of local government to respond in light of the significant costs that Local Government New Zealand says will befall not only consumers but will befall ratepayers in various communities around the country. 
The concerns of Local Government New Zealand were considerable. According to long-term council community plans—LTCCPs—the funding shows that 20 councils will have to spend over $2000 on a per capita basis and some will have to spend more than $4000 on a per capita basis to comply with this legislation. That is why it is so important to put affordability into the criteria for the requirements to comply with the legislation—and we put those in. A number of councils were very concerned about that matter. Marlborough Rangitikei Thames Coromandel Timaru and Whangarei in particular were concerned about the costs that various users would have. 
National members will talk about that because a review of the long-term council community plans across the country revealed that over the next 10 years $2.7 billion will need to be spent by local government much of it as a result of what has been proposed in this legislation. That is a very significant burden on local government ratepayers when the consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water they are getting. The consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water because the vast majority of them are aware that quality is always a trade-off between cost and benefit. We believe that it is a trade-off that consumers and ratepayers should be making rather than having a heavy-handed expensive proposal put on them by central government. 
As I said earlier in the remainder of the debate National members will not only take the House through the three key areas of how improvements have been suggested by us at the select committee but also how the cost the health evidence and the lack of consultation and cooperation with Local Government New Zealand mean that the House should not support the progress of this legislation. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I found that speech made by the Opposition spokesperson on health issues the Hon Tony Ryall to be rather sad—especially when two of the National members on the Health Committee are health practitioners. It is simply disgraceful that they do not support this bill and I will tell the House my reasons. A family member of mine is a public health practitioner in Nelson. That community has been screaming out for this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill since 1993. I wonder whether health practitioners who work in rich metropolitan areas are really aware of the causative link between the quality of drinking water and water-borne infections. If they went to Te Puia or Ruatoria the community would tell them about the number of people affected. The kaumatua and kuia would say that they know there is a sickness there and that they are losing family members to bowel cancer and stomach cancer. They say: “The drinking water here is patu but we can’t afford to fix it.” I wonder whether those health practitioners on the select committee actually listened to the submissions made by people from small communities. The answer is no those people can never come to a Health Committee to talk about drinking-water legislation. 
Why do those members not listen to public health practitioners in this country who have the evidence on this issue and clearly point out the risks to the health of 500000 or more New Zealanders who are currently exposed to drinking-water supplies that do not meet the drinking-water standards for New Zealand? Those standards are based on World Health Organization standards. We know about the outbreaks of water-borne illness that have happened in this country. The member Tony Ryall said he did not really think there were water-borne outbreaks. I tell him to get close to his public health practitioners and they will tell him. Let us look at campylobacter for example. The member said it is linked to food but it is linked to water too. The rate of campylobacter in New Zealand is that of England’s. Is that acceptable? Is it acceptable for National members to simply sit back and say that the costs to local government of implementing the bill outweigh the public benefits to those in New Zealand? I do not think so. I do not want to be part of a Government that sits and does nothing about public health protection for the well-being of New Zealanders and says the costs to local government are simply too high. 
Members opposite bleat on about Local Government New Zealand having said the costs are too high. For goodness’ sake! This Government has committed $154 million over 10 years to help upgrade small suppliers of drinking water to areas with populations under 5000. That is an astonishing contribution to benefit those small communities which of course can never meet the cost of upgrading their water supply. The Opposition has health practitioners on the Health Committee and they know about the principles of public health yet they say the cost of fixing our drinking water is too high. That is why National will do nothing and will not support the bill. But the public health sector and the Ministry of Health have been saying to local government and local bodies that drinking-water legislation is desperately needed. They have worked on the issue for 14 years and have kept asking for this legislation to be brought to the House. The National Government did nothing during its decade in office. 
We now have a bill before the House but National will vote against it. That is simply shameful. I know that the two health practitioners opposite know about public health principles and know that something should be done about safe drinking-water. Do we ignore 61 cases at a school camp in Christchurch 67 cases in Wainuiomata 187 cases in May 2001 69 cases of viral gastroenteritis at a ski field—no National would not ignore that—and 49 cases at a school camp in Waikato? That is appalling yet they use the argument that it is not necessarily linked to water. They say it could be food-based campylobacter. I cannot believe that. Those practitioners know that people who get campylobacter which is one of the potentially water-borne diseases in New Zealand can get fevers headaches abdominal pains nausea vomiting and can have as many as 10 watery often bloody bowel movements daily. Is that all right? I say it is not all right. This Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill will fix that problem. Nothing else does. It will fix drinking-water supplies for our poor deprived communities. 
How can Opposition members sit there and say they are not going to do anything about it? I am proud to be in a Government that says it will do something about it. This bill will raise the standards of drinking water to compare New Zealand favourably to the OECD. The health practitioners on the other side of the House will say: “Labour did nothing and how does New Zealand compare on the league tables with OECD countries?”. They know but ask what we are doing about it. Yet they vote down a New Zealand public health drinking-water bill. Well I say tell that to Dr Ed Kiddle my brother-in-law in Nelson who says: “For goodness’ sake! What are you doing? Get it into Government get it into the law.” 
The health practitioners sitting opposite know that it is simply not good enough for water-borne diseases to be so prevalent in New Zealand. I cannot believe the flip-flop the Opposition has done on this issue. The Hon Pete Hodgson was asked a question in the House and he replied: “I have had several reports. One was from the Hon Nick Smith last month stating that 24 percent of our drinking water is unsafe that that is ‘an appalling statistic’ ”—this is Dr Nick Smith from Nelson who also said enforcement action is urgently needed. The Minister’s reply continued: “I received two other reports a few months earlier. Those stated that New Zealand is known for having the best standard of drinking water in the world that it has excellent standards of drinking water and that this is a problem that does not need fixing.” Those statements were made by Dr Coleman and Dr Blue. It is simply unbelievable. 
The National Party is both deeply concerned about the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water and deeply unconcerned. If that is the nature of the National Party’s concern then it is no wonder that it has not managed to formulate any health policy of any credibility with public health practitioners in this country. National cannot even work out what it wants to do about New Zealand’s drinking water. I am very sad about that. Opposition members can carp on about this issue yet New Zealanders in every community—not just small rural isolated communities but metropolitan communities—know the level of campylobacter outbreak. I was a councillor in Rotorua where we had dairy faecal contamination of our drinking water. As local body politicians we were deeply concerned about that. We knew there were kids coming to school with horrible symptoms who were infecting their schoolmates and feeling lousy. How could those children learn? How can those practitioners opposite say that 500000 New Zealanders who are at risk from drinking-water supply systems that simply do not meet the standard do not matter. 
This bill is long overdue. I am sorry it has taken us 7 years to get it to the House. I am proud it is here now. I know that public health units around the country are saying: “Hallelujah! Bring it on!”. I believe that once the local government sector really wakes up about the $175 million we are putting in to assist local government costs it will meet this. They have said: “Bring in the standards. Bring in the bill and we will comply.” The local government sector always folds in and likes the contribution for bringing water schemes up to speed so that New Zealanders drink safe drinking-water. 
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sure that during the Committee stage we will hear the clause-by-clause breakdown. I will be interested to take my turn. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Hearing Steve Chadwick’s contribution really shows us where the Labour Party is going wrong on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We heard a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-science and all sorts of bizarre explanations why there is actually a need for this bill. We heard stuff like the drinking water on the East Coast is giving people bowel cancer and stomach cancer. We heard all sorts of odd stuff in the speech from Steve Chadwick who is standing in for the Minister of Health—that there was an outbreak and some sewage was poured into Lake Wakatipu back in 1984. One has to ask how this bill will actually stop sewage from being poured into Lake Wakatipu. That sums it up really. 
This bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is an answer to a problem that has not been defined. When one looks at the evidence for the need for this bill one sees it is not solidly there. We have to be cautious before imposing these massive costs—$2.3 billion over 10 years. It is amazing when one looks at the priorities of this Labour Government. It is so concerned with getting this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill through but the reality is that we do not have typhoid in New Zealand. We do not have these really severe water-borne epidemics. We also do not have elective surgery. That is really the problem. We do not have a focus from this Government on the real problems in health. 
The Government is rushing to do things like head up to North Shore Hospital and erect a statue. All the local failed list MPs were rolled out to back up Helen Clark to put up a statue to shed light in places where darkness has descended. The Government is rushing to get this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill through and to spend all this money on purifying the drinking water which frankly may or may not be contaminated; the Government does not know. At the same time it is ignoring the basic health problems in New Zealand. The fact is that people cannot get elective surgery. The fact is that patients in North Shore Hospital in my electorate are sitting on trolleys. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Prevention. That is what this bill is about. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: This bill will prevent the problems at North Shore Hospital? We are not having the water-borne epidemics that these Ministers and members are talking about. It is interesting. As Dr Ryall said— 
Moana Mackey 
: Dr Ryall? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: He used to be known as “Justice Ryall”. Mr Ryall said that this Government likes to pride itself on consultation with local government. Person after person from local government came to see us at the select committee. They said: “Look! This bill will impose an absolutely intolerable burden on councils. It will be absolutely impossible to pay for this.” We have over 20 councils in New Zealand that will have to pay more than $2000 per head per capita of the population they serve in order to solve a problem that to those councils does not actually exist. We heard from a couple of councils that will have to pay over $4000 a head. We heard that over the next 10 years $2.3 billion of council expenditure— 
Steve Chadwick 
: What about the subsidy? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Let us talk about the subsidy; we have to get on to the subsidy. Steve Chadwick talked about the Government subsidy. I can tell members that what came out of that is that the Government subsidy will be for capital expenditure only. It will not cover operating expenditure to solve this problem. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It helps. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It helps but it will still result in massive costs being imposed on local government. The Government knows this but it has no answer. 
The thing with this Labour Party is that it does not have any voters in rural areas any more. It has lost all its rural seats. Frankly Labour does not care about anywhere but the vote in South Auckland and west Auckland because that is the only hope it has. It has given up on Jill Pettis’ seat in Wanganui; that is for sure. The Government knows that Labour is going out in Rotorua so really it does not matter if a whole lot of costs are going to be imposed there because the votes will not be there. The votes are not there for Labour. If we look at the scientific evidence here we will see— 
Jill Pettis 
: So National only does something if there are votes in it? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No. It is not a matter of that. It is not a matter of that at all. I am saying that this Government is quite prepared to impose this cost on rural people and on local government because frankly it has given up on those people and it does not care. It is keen just to see this bill being bulldozed through at any price whatever. It is definitely a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. 
 But it is the spend and tax Government that we have now suffered under for 9 years and the people of New Zealand have had enough of it and Local Government New Zealand has definitely had enough of it. As I said we had mayor after mayor and chief executive officer after chief executive officer coming in and saying: “Please do not impose this on us.” As Mr Ryall said we managed to get some concessions out of them. We had ludicrous situations where people who were supplying one or two or a mere handful of rural customers were going to have to comply with this standard. It was pointed out that at the end of the day the customers would just turn off the tap. So once again the Government yielded to this and finally started to see common sense. 
But what is really concerning is that there has been no real legitimate cost-benefit analysis to justify imposing this expense on people. We have heard these vague testimonies about what has happened overseas and about outbreaks in Russia and Wisconsin but we have heard no solid evidence about what happens here in New Zealand. The member for Rotorua talked a lot about campylobacter. Well campylobacter is actually a food-handling disease and is a disease that we get from chickens. The Government is not using any evidence to link up its arguments and that is the key problem; there is a flaw there. There is not sufficient evidence to support its case. There is not the evidence to justify this $2.3 billion of expenditure. With $2.3 billion over 10 years we could do a heck of a lot for the health of New Zealand in areas where we know we will get a return. That is the problem. There is no focus from this Labour Government on what really counts and what is really going to deliver the changes that we need in this country. 
This bill will impose a completely unnecessary level of compulsion. As we heard during this inquiry the vast majority of town water suppliers throughout the country actually comply with the standards. We heard that when it came down to it the bill’s provisions were going to affect 16 percent of water suppliers throughout the country who would really have to clean up their act and many of them would just end up turning off the tap anyway. So it seems to be completely ridiculous to impose another level of cost and bureaucracy on suppliers who are already complying. At the end of the day it will be the poor old ratepayers the people who pay their taxes who keep local government going and who keep the country going—basically the people who are out there working—who will end up paying for this. I can tell members that people in New Zealand are pretty much fed up with seeing their taxes being spent on things that they do not need to be spent on basically for this Government to come up with answers in areas where there really are no problems. So there has been a flawed rationale behind this whole bill. 
Let us consider the rates of water-borne outbreaks. We heard this story about something happening on a ski field about 20 years ago but there has not really been much more detail to back it up. We have not seen the hard science from the East Coast which that member from Rotorua was talking about—the links between stomach cancer and bowel cancer and contaminated water. I tell members that if there really was a link the Health Committee would be really glad to have a look at it because bringing up that sort of fatuous argument does nothing to justify this $2.3 billion of Government expenditure. It really is a ridiculous situation. 
But what was really interesting was what we heard from the officials and Tony Ryall touched on this. Originally the estimate was this would cost about $50 million. Then we heard that it might be $50 million to $275 million. Then they had a conference last year and said: “Well actually it is going to be $300 million.” It is pretty hard to see how much this whole thing is going to end up costing. But what we can say is that we do have figures from some of these councils and they are all from the South Island. The Mackenzie District Council which covers 3000 people will have to pay $3 million to comply with this legislation. I do not know how much cholera and typhoid we have had in the Mackenzie Country lately but I would like to bet that it is not too much. The Ashburton District Council—Ashburton is another area that Labour will never hold—will spend $10 million over the lifetime of the long-term council community plan and the Clutha District Council will spend $20 million. In Owaka 200 ratepayers will have to pay $750000 to comply with this. Central Otago with 23 water suppliers will spend $5 million. 
The problem is that these Labour members think there is a massive problem here with the drinking-water standard that is causing some sort of water-borne outbreak of terribly debilitating diseases throughout the country. There is not. That is the issue. If we had some competent people on the Treasury benches who could take this $2.3 billion they could do a helluva lot with that money over the course of the 10 years it will be spent. 
This bill is a bit like hair dye. One can apply it to try to cover up a problem but at the end of the day the problem lies underneath. The reality is that this Government is out of time it is out of answers and it just does not know which problems are worth focusing on. It is sayonara to the Government. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow that member. He is intelligent he believed what he was saying but in this instance he was totally wrong. We do need some facts on this particular situation. New Zealand First supports the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It is long overdue and we unlike the National Party support all practical steps being taken to improve the drinking-water standards in the cities where our National members mainly live and in the country towns. 
The Health Committee worked hard on this bill and we have to acknowledge the patience and the significant input from the select committee officials and the input from the Local Government New Zealand representatives. We know that quite a number of improvements have been made to the bill as a result of their input. And of course we must acknowledge the input here of New Zealand First and the Greens as well. We know that most drinking water in New Zealand is supplied by local councils with quality standards currently set by a voluntary compliance regime—voluntary not compulsory. This has delivered good water to the city where Mr David Bennett lives but in the small communities with populations of 10000 people or fewer water standards are variable—good in the winter perhaps not so good in the summer and councils are less likely to be involved. Small communities with populations of 10000 or fewer really do not have the same quality of water that we have in the towns and cities and they may have higher costs and some administrative work to actually comply with this legislation. 
 We have to recognise that these smaller and more isolated water systems will create some challenges for communities where the council is not involved. We must remember too that these communities have access to their own resources and also to the funding and the technical assistance funding that has been made available by the Government. So it will be absolutely essential that the relevant authorities work through the details of the funding and technical assistance available and that the level of funding is reviewed to ensure it is adequate for the implementation of this bill for small suppliers. 
I must say that it would be extremely remiss of a Government not to ensure that it had a comprehensive risk management strategy in place to ensure that people and communities have clean drinking-water available at all times. We would expect that to be done and we would blame the Government if it were not. Clean drinking-water is a basic requirement for any First World country—and we like to think of ourselves as a First World country. The strategy in this bill is to have a drinking-water standard to set out the duties of drinking-water suppliers and to have a register of community drinking-water suppliers—and it is a sound strategy. We do not need a voluntary regime any more. We need to have a regulatory regime to promote the quality and safety of drinking water rather than relying totally on the voluntary mechanisms that have regulated the drinking-water sector in the past. Other developed nations have this sort of framework in place and it is time for New Zealand to move in this direction. 
Compared with international experience we know that New Zealanders do not value good-quality drinking-water. The reality is that we do not even think about it; we just expect it to be there when we turn on the tap as a normal part of life. We know that we have a looming diabetes and obesity problem and it is really essential that parents and relevant agencies can promote water as a viable alternative to fizzy drinks and any other types of drinks that our children are consuming. 
In some parts of New Zealand there have been drinking-water system failures that have caused relatively minor illnesses. Fortunately none at this time has resulted in death but I would imagine that the people affected did not believe that the illness was minor when they got sick. The example that first springs to mind is the very recent occurrence at the Cardrona ski field. 
Threats from new pathogens and a slowly changing attitude by all Kiwis to the duty of care from public providers mean that higher standards will be demanded from the institutions that regulate and deliver drinking water to us. Over the summer months I like most other MPs have received complaints from people about the smell and the taste of the water they are receiving. Of course we must include in this the many organisations that deliver drinking water to those of us in rural areas who are dependent on rainwater that we get only from tanks. We have to buy water from suppliers over the summer months and we do notice a significant difference in the taste of it. 
Like most parties we had some concerns about the costs that could be expected to follow on as a result of this legislation and we would like to see this level of funding reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate. Risks are always associated with providing essential Government financial assistance because we know that this financial assistance has to manage a whole range of risks that in themselves can be a challenge. The very last thing we want to see is that larger suppliers complete their funding applications quickly. We have to realise that they usually have readily available all of the clerical support and expertise needed and that they receive the funding. That can leave insufficient funds for smaller suppliers that still have to meet the same requirements as the larger ones and that in many cases will need a longer time to prepare their applications because of a lack of clerical expertise and the resources to make the necessary changes to their plans to apply for the grants and of course to get their water and their water treatment plants to a standard that meets the changed requirements. 
We have to realise that it is always possible that the funding assistance could have been used for water schemes that would have happened anyway or for any necessary routine maintenance that should have happened many months ago—in some cases years ago. I saw some photos of plant that had not been well-maintained and although it may not have placed public health at risk it certainly made one wonder about the hydrated iron oxide or the iron oxide hydroxide content commonly known as rust—for the information of Mr David Bennett—that people are unknowingly being exposed to. 
We have to ask whether these suppliers will actually be applying for the financial assistance programme and of course we have to say that they will be. So we can see some challenges ahead for this particular programme but we are still very pleased to support it. 
We are pleased to see too that technical assistance will be available to all suppliers. Technical expertise and assistance is essential for the success of this legislation. Of course we need sufficiently trained people to enable this technical assistance to be available when it is requested. 
Just in wrapping up I would like to inform the National Party that according to the Ball report the occurrence of water-borne disease in New Zealand has been demonstrated by quite a number of studies. I quote: “Based on current available data two separate estimates of the burden of ” disease are “18000 and 34000 cases per annum.” That is significant. Preliminary results from work in progress suggest that those are underestimates and that is very very bad for us. 
So we in New Zealand First support this legislation. We are looking forward to working and seeing this legislation come into force because we know that clean wholesome drinking-water is absolutely essential for New Zealanders. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill which we will be voting for with great pleasure. This was a very interesting bill and it was considered by the Health Committee at great length. The committee members have given this bill exhaustive consideration and we have made very very substantial amendments to it. 
One thing that all submitters agreed on—in fact I cannot recall any submitters saying anything to the contrary—was that water is too important to be left to a voluntary standard as the National Party is advocating. Everybody agreed that this is important—that there needs to be a mandatory standard for water and that we cannot simply leave it up to the free market. 
We have had a number of debates around the extent to which we have a problem with our water in New Zealand. It is true as some have said that to date there have not been significant problems in respect of people becoming ill from water in New Zealand and thank heaven for that. But I would point out that just a few weeks ago Canterbury’s top health watchdog was warning of the potentially huge health effects that may occur if the Central Plains Water scheme—a huge $350 million irrigation scheme—went ahead. He said this could result in an explosion—[ 
Interruption 
]—well he is the top health watchdog—in the incidence of crippling and potentially fatal water-borne diseases such as campylobacter and cryptosporidium. Canterbury’s medical officer of health Dr Alistair Humphrey who is a credible person said these concerns had not been given the attention they needed. 
Wally Clark a professor from the University of Canterbury said that water was a big concern especially where dairying was concerned and that campylobacter and cryptosporidium previously little-known diseases had become commonplace in Canterbury with the growth of dairying. These diseases were really bad and were increasing he said and he added that we needed to look at their incidence. He said that South Canterbury had the highest rates of campylobacter in the world and that there were issues relating to the potential degradation of aquifers serving residents in Christchurch. He pointed out that if we are going to see an expansion of dairying in New Zealand as we inevitably are then issues around water supply may very well become more commonplace. 
I agree with a previous speaker from National that if we are concerned with campylobacter in our water and are correctly moving to try to do something about it then we should be even more concerned about campylobacter in chicken because the overwhelming cause of campylobacter in New Zealand is chicken and we know that that is mostly to do with the way chickens are raised in the slaughterhouses. So why are we not making an equal effort to clean up the slaughterhouses and the sheds in which chickens are raised? However I will not get distracted by that issue except to make that comment. 
It is also true however—and National has already pointed this out—that when the original submitters came to the Health Committee the majority of local government was opposed to the bill and it was worried about the effect of the costs on rates. Local Government New Zealand came to us with very alarming estimates of the cost that this legislation might result in for ratepayers and it was worried that the cost could virtually bankrupt some of the smaller authorities in New Zealand. 
The Health Committee listened to the concerns of Local Government New Zealand and bent over backwards. I can think of no other bill that has come before Parliament where there has been so much genuine consultation—in this instance with Local Government New Zealand. We authorised Andrew Forsyth and his team—the officials working on the bill—to meet with local government. Those officials went to local government all around New Zealand they listened to its concerns and there was a genuine dialogue. Local Government New Zealand expressed a view on the particular issues that it was concerned about and we sought to address every single issue that it raised. We bent over backwards. I think this would possibly be the most genuine case of consultation and negotiation over legislation that has occurred in a very long time. 
As a result of the extensive consultations that we undertook we have made a whole series of important changes to this bill. I notice that the National member Tony Ryall whom Dr Jonathan Coleman referred to as Dr Tony Ryall—but he is in fact Tony Ryall—said that National had brought about some changes to this bill. I can assure anyone who may be listening that if we try to see where the changes came from we will find that they certainly came from the committee as a whole but in particular from New Zealand First and the Green Party because we had the votes and because both Barbara Stewart and myself expressed huge concern about this issue. We were not prepared to go ahead with legislation that would impose Draconian onerous and unnecessary costs on local government so we insisted that our officials make changes and as a result they did so. It was an example of MMP in action and of MMP parties requiring much greater consultation and negotiation. This resulted in more amendments and changes to the bill than would otherwise have been made. 
I actually believe that most of Local Government New Zealand is appreciative of the work we did and agrees with this bill. I suspect National members do too but they want to have a point of difference to campaign on so they are opposing it. But I think in their heart of hearts they agree that we need mandatory water standards and that this bill actually addresses the major concerns that were presented to us by Local Government New Zealand. 
We have created a new category of rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers with much more flexible obligations in respect of their drinking-water standards. We have created a new definition of “neighbourhood drinking-water supply” based on the number of people supplied. We have generally allowed suppliers serving fewer people to be given much more time to comply. We have amended the time lines so that the suppliers can align themselves with the time lines of the Local Government Act. That was in response to a concern that many people expressed which was that if there were going to be a significant upgrade suppliers would have to include that in their long-term local government plans. 
We have defined the term “all practicable steps” which councils must take to implement the standards to include affordability. That was a specific request made by Local Government New Zealand that we have agreed to. We have effectively taken on board virtually all those concerns of Local Government New Zealand including staggering time frames until 2012 and until legal duties are applied. 
There is one other little thing I would like to comment on. Under the bill the Minister will in future be able to amend or revoke drinking-water standards. We received a submission expressing a legitimate concern that this provision could somehow be used by a subsequent Minister to bring in mandatory water fluoridation effectively by the backdoor and without local consultation. So we made a further amendment stipulating that this provision will not enable mandatory water fluoridation to be introduced into New Zealand. We have also required the Minister to undergo a 3-year consultation period before amending a drinking-water standard and we have made a further amendment stipulating that legal duties under the new standards will arise only 2 years after the standards have been passed. 
So I think members will see from some of those provisions—and there are other provisions as well—that we have very extensively amended this bill. We took into account all the concerns of Local Government New Zealand. We extensively consulted with it and I believe we have come up with a bill that meets the need to have mandatory drinking-water standards and does so in a way that will not impose onerous costs on local government. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is encapsulated in one simple sentence—the right to clean safe water is a fundamental human right. Standards are required and need to be enforced as there are numerous sources of threats to clean drinking-water. So we in the Maori Party have been happy to put forward our support for the bill as a party that stands up for the fundamental human rights of people. One would have thought that this would be an aspiration that all parties in this House would stand up for but of course it is now part of the international record of shame that our current Government will in New York on 13 September—that is tomorrow—put forward its opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a declaration that addresses both individual and collective rights cultural rights and identity and rights to education health employment language and others. It is a declaration that outlaws discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them. It ensures their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic social and cultural development. But no it is not a declaration that this Government is prepared to support. 
For Maori water rights have a particular value. Every iwi and hapu has a river or a lake so every iwi and hapu has been concerned about the global commercial interests that are being pushed through Governments with multinational companies looking to buy water rights. Ko te tikanga kia noho tonuma te iwi a-rohe te whakahaeremoonaake mana moana. Each tribal area should be responsible for its own territorial waters. 
So we look at the strategy underpinning the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill to see how tangata whenua are engaged and involved in the improvements in risk management in respect of drinking water. We are interested that the bulk of the 47 submissions received were from local authorities and water suppliers who of course have a vested interest in the quality of drinking water. What we know is that there are a host of threats to safe clean drinking water in Aotearoa. There is for example agricultural runoff; horticultural sprays; pest eradication spray programmes; industry both intentional and unintentional; stormwater mixing with drinking water due to infrastructure problems and flooding; lead water pipes; and possums and birds contaminating roof water and so on. 
Some or all of these issues are pretty much a constant feature of daily life as reported in the nation’s media. Any differences in water-supply quality tend to be due to where Maori choose to live. In other words as has already been highlighted in some of our rural areas where there are high Maori populations there are also some of the highest rates of E. coli and reported drinking - water - borne diseases. There are some big issues that need further analysis around the purity of the water supply to our marae. We have tended to overlook the damage of runoff from the roof and the quality of the water from springs and the question is: how careful are we? 
Hapu and iwi as kaitiaki of water would suggest that the management of water should be jointly managed with local authorities. We notice that the select committee gave emphasis to its extensive consultation with Local Government New Zealand and we in the Maori Party can only wonder whether there was extensive consultation with whanau hapu and iwi to discuss the new drinking-water standards. Although the Health Committee concluded that water supply has historically been the responsibility of local government we can only ask too what priority the select committee has afforded to those who persevere and embrace the spiritual and cultural guardianship of Te Ao Marama. 
Our whakapapa responsibilities of kaitiakitanga require us to exercise responsibility in a way that measures the wealth and well-being of resources such as water and I want to talk about the association between wealth and water. Any analysis of the economic environmental and social condition of Maori must include the sustainability and quality of the water supplies within our communities. Wealth is as much about living well as a whanau hapu and iwi as it is about the ecological capacity of our planet. That is where the welfare of Maori is absolutely connected to the public health risk-management plans that this bill creates as a duty and an obligation on suppliers. 
We do however agree with the concerns put forward in the minority view of our friends in the National Party regarding the impact of the compliance costs from this bill on local government and water rates. It has greatly concerned us as a party that an intractable political and corporate culture is approaching the economics of environment protection as another indicator of GDP. We would be extremely concerned to see the good governance responsibilities involved in managing public health risks being translated into further downstream costs for ratepayers. We are of course alarmed at the pollution of the ecosystem and the devastation of disease vectors that have increased the reservoir of potential water-borne human pathogens carried by animals—in other words the harmful impact of contaminated drinking-water whether done intentionally or recklessly. So on that one count alone we will continue to support this bill so that Maori can anticipate a future of living in good health and in reasonable prosperity. But we are also mindful that low-income communities in particular may be more vulnerable to water contamination if they are already lacking sufficient nourishment to fight off the harm. 
Once again it comes back to rights—the right of New Zealanders to benefit from living in a clean safe and healthy environment and the right of New Zealanders to prosper from the protection restoration and enhancement of mauri the life force within our natural environments. 
Finally despite the shameful performance that this current Government has demonstrated concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples I am aware that on 22 March World Water Day a number of agencies internationally called for a United Nations convention on the right to water. We in the Maori Party respecting water as a taonga are interested in learning the position of the current Government toward such an international convention. 
We absolutely endorse the provision of safe affordable water for drinking and sanitation as a basic human right. We do not believe that the privatisation and trading of water rights sits alongside indigenous rights or human rights. Our commitment to supporting the bill at this its second reading is to do so in the interests of protecting and preserving a stable and secure environment for future generations. Such a goal reflects our party’s belief in genuine progress true wealth and kaitiakitanga. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. A safe drinking-water supply is about as basic a human need as you can get and although currently 71 percent of the New Zealand population is served by a water supply that complies with some standards the rest are served by a water supply that is either non-compliant or not known to be compliant. The other 29 percent of the population in areas where suppliers are unable to substantiate the quality of the water they supply are largely living in small rural communities. 
To date we have been served by a voluntary regulatory scheme but that leaves nearly one-third of New Zealanders not covered by that scheme. How many New Zealanders who are reliant on uncertain water supplies I wonder does it take before we will support the type of change that we are looking at in the House this afternoon? The phase-in approach to a multifaceted strategy for improving risk management in regard to our drinking water is I believe the way that we can spread the cost but it concerns me that we should be weighing up water quality in mere monetary terms. Hearing some people suggest that we cannot afford it worries United Future. It is of concern that the burgeoning role of local government means that it baulks at the costs associated with drinking water and maybe that is a discussion for another day. United Future believes that we cannot afford not to plan for a future that includes clear drinking-water standards. 
Several years ago I was fortunate enough to attend an international conference in Viet Nam on water. I left with two clear impressions. My first impression was that we should be very grateful for what we have. Most of the countries at that particular conference talked about sharing water supplies with other countries literally upstream with different priorities and different standards. Often there were great tensions around the sharing of very very scarce water supplies. The second impression I came out of the conference with was that we should not take for granted this very basic resource which was described by many at the conference as the new gold and new oil. In fact international experts at that conference talked of future wars being waged over water not oil and they said that a sustainable healthy water supply needs to be deliberately planned for. 
I congratulate the Health Committee which United Future does not enjoy representation on on the sensible changes that I see it has made and on the collaborative way it has worked. We are very happy to support the second reading of this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very very pleased to stand in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in this second reading in the House and what an extraordinary debate we have had so far. It is very telling that with nearly every other party in the House supporting this bill National members have decided they want to play politics with it. They want to be able to go around next year saying that Labour has put up the cost of people’s rates and what they are forgetting is that we are actually dealing with the public health of some of our poorest communities and some of our poorest New Zealanders. I would like to hear the next National speaker tell the House what dollar value National members would place on the public health of these poor New Zealanders before those members would suddenly be willing to support this bill 
The Government wants to ensure that all New Zealanders on community water supplies have access to safe drinking-water just as people in urban centres in New Zealand enjoy already access to safe drinking-water. Compared with other OECD countries we do have relatively high rates of preventable illness caused in part by water-borne germs. 
Jo Goodhew 
: In part. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Apparently according to National we should not do anything because only a few people get sick from water in New Zealand. Well I want the next National speaker to tell the House how many New Zealanders have to become ill in this country from water-borne diseases before the National members will suddenly start caring about those New Zealanders and start supporting this bill. The dollar value and the number of New Zealanders are what I look forward to hearing about in the next National speech. 
Currently about 71 percent of New Zealanders enjoy drinking water that complies with standards and is safe. That is very good. The suppliers of that water will be largely unaffected as a result of this bill. But some of the smaller water suppliers do not meet the standards and with some of them we simply do not know whether they meet the standards because the Ministry of Health is not able to obtain that information under the current powers that it has. This bill addresses that. This Labour-led Government is investing $154 million to help upgrade and improve small water suppliers. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman said that the subsidy scheme was useless—which means that National wants to get rid of it let us be clear about that. Maybe he should talk to the Opotiki District Council which put in place these kinds of schemes in the 1990s when there were no subsidies. The council has said to me that it would have loved to have been able to do that under a Labour-led Government—to have been able to get the subsidy for the capital works. So the next National speaker can tell us whether they will keep these subsidies or expand them. I suggest that they will not. Maybe they will give tax cuts to E. coli. Maybe that will solve it because tax cuts seem to fix everything else for National. 
We heard from National that consumers are not complaining so we should not do anything. Well consumers do not know in many cases whether their water is up to standard. I guarantee that there is not a rural community in this country who if told that their drinking water had unsafe levels of E. coli or campylobacter would say that that is OK or their first question would be how much their rates were going to be. They would say that they wanted their water fixed because healthy and safe drinking-water is a right not a privilege—especially in countries like New Zealand. 
I was talking to my colleague Jill Pettis and she informed me that in the 1980s under the fourth Labour Government the wonderful city of Wanganui enjoyed subsidies from the Labour Government for their waste water—millions and millions of dollars. What did National do the minute it came into Government? It scrapped those subsidies. So let us be clear National does not have a good record of supporting small communities—in rural and provincial New Zealand—on safe drinking-water and waste-water standards. New Zealand is unusual amongst developed nations in relying almost entirely on voluntary mechanisms for safe drinking-water. This bill goes a long way towards addressing that. 
We do as I have said have high rates of largely preventable gastrointestinal disease: campylobacter is twice the rate in New Zealand as it is in England and three times that of Australia and Canada. We do not like being beaten by Australia in anything and I think this is a particularly important area. The current state of New Zealand’s drinking- water legislation also gives little protection or deterrence against a major outbreak of disease in New Zealand. So we are also thinking ahead. Imagine what would happen if we had a major outbreak of a disease in our drinking water in this country—either deliberate or accidental—and this Government with the support of the other parties in this House had not done anything to put into place standards that allowed forward planning and public health plans in order to help us to deal with it. What would National members say? Would they say: “Well that’s OK Labour. We don’t mind that you didn’t do it because we think it would have put rates up.”? They would be on it like white on snow. They would be all over it and asking why Labour had not done anything while it had been in Government all of that time. 
Well here they sit today voting against this legislation which is forward looking and will protect the health of New Zealanders—unlike the situation we have seen overseas in Milwaukee for example where 70 to 100 people died and 400000 people became sick as a result of water-borne diseases that were unforeseen. The National members throw up their hands and say that they do not care. They say that they do not care because it does not meet their cost-benefit analysis of protecting New Zealanders’ health. 
We accept regulation to ensure the safety of food and discretionary consumer goods. There is no discretion over drinking water. Unless we want to pay ridiculous amounts for bottled water which most people cannot afford we do not have a choice. We have to have water and most people get it from a supply that they assume is safe. I think most New Zealanders do not realise that the safety around that supply is voluntary—it is completely voluntary. I think if they were to know or become fully aware of that they would want something done and they would want everyone in Parliament to vote for it. 
As I said this legislation will just bring New Zealand into line with other First World countries but it will not make it compulsory to comply with the drinking-water standards. I congratulate the Health Committee on the very good practical work it did in looking at the way in which we run the system and realising that in some places it will just not be realistic that some of these things can be enacted either quickly or indeed at all. But where that happens we need to know that there is a plan in place to deal with the possible health impacts of not complying with drinking-water standards. I think that is the least that our rural communities can expect from their Government. 
I thought it was interesting looking at the research from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and the Dunedin school of medicine that showed that rates of illness from water-borne diseases were higher in areas where the water did not meet the standards. Dr Jonathan Coleman can stand up in the House to tell us that water is not a problem and that one gets campylobacter from chicken not water but that is not borne out by the evidence. We know that the young the elderly and the sick are particularly vulnerable; everyone may not die nor get really sick but we know that there are some New Zealanders who are particularly susceptible to these diseases. If they have other pre-existing conditions it can be fatal. 
I think that those people also deserve to know why the National Party thinks that their health is not worth supporting through this bill. It is also important to note that an estimated 70 percent to 95 percent of cases are not notified so we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg when we look at this issue. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How do you know if they are not notified? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Jo Goodhew can shake her head. She does not care about the people who cannot afford good water because they do not vote for her; that is what it comes down to. When it comes down to it—and it is not very nice—the reality is that small communities that do not have these schemes and that really cannot afford them are the poor communities that John Key used to care about when he talked about the underclass but apparently he has completely forgotten about them now. When the rubber hits the road the underclass is empty rhetoric—unless they want a nice little ride in John Key’s limousine. 
We in Labour believe that those people deserve and are entitled to the same healthy drinking-water that Jo Goodhew enjoys. That may be anathema to National but it is certainly not to Labour. That is why this bill more than any bill underlines the fundamental difference between the two major parties in this House. Labour believes that these standards should apply to everyone; National members believe as always that those standards should apply to their mates and the people who vote for them—everyone else can go to hell in a handbasket as far as they are concerned. 
I will quickly address the compliance costs. There was a  
New Zealand Herald 
 article in which Mr John Key gave a speech to the Local Government New Zealand conference in Dunedin. He cited the example of Owaka which had to install new infrastructure for drinking water at a cost of $750000 for 200 ratepayers. In fact a report from the Central Otago District Council—the actual operator of the supply—estimated the cost to fully comply with the standards will be between $10000 and $55000. 
 I expect that many of the estimates National members are using in this House are completely overblown. Many of the estimates National members are using are simply there to scare these communities. Many of the estimates are there to somehow justify National’s politicking with this bill which is about the most fundamental human right that we have in this country: the right to clean safe drinking-water—for everyone not just for people who vote National. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 National opposes the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the excellent contributions from Tony Ryall and Dr Jonathan Coleman. We think the intentions of this bill are commendable and laudable. We also agree that water is essential for life and that New Zealanders should have access to good safe water. But this bill is not the mechanism to achieve that. This bill is costly to ratepayers it is impractical and the issue of affordability has not been factored into it. The small and rural ratepayers will be the ones who suffer. They will bear the brunt of this bill. Basically the bill is what Dr Jonathan Coleman said it is—a legislative sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is micromanagement to the nth degree. 
The vast majority of water suppliers we heard from in the select committee give high-quality water to their communities. They undertake self-improvement and they monitor. This is voluntary—they are not forced to do anything—and they are doing it very very well. Only a small number of water suppliers about 16 percent have a problem and need to clean up their act. We also agree that these groups should absolutely be providing safe water and all practical steps should be taken to improve drinking water. We also absolutely agree that if there is a clear link between drinking water and infection urgent and firm action should be taken. But we think this bill is overkill. 
The Health Committee received a submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. It detailed 23 outbreaks of water-borne infection that had occurred in the last 30 years and it gave us quite a lot of detail. I will go over the four examples that have occurred in the last decade—the rest had occurred prior to that. 
The first case in the last 10 years occurred in a rural school in Hawke’s Bay in 2001. The problem was that faeces from cattle had got into the source water. The reason there was an infection was that the ultraviolet treatment machine was malfunctioning. I do not think this bill would have somehow fixed up the ultraviolet treatment machine. The second example occurred in Banks Peninsula in 2004. The problem there was that an effluent pipe in a septic tank had broken and it discharged into a spring-fed drinking-water supply. Again I do not think this bill would have fixed the septic tank or the effluent pipe. The third example occurred in a Nelson camp in 2004. In actual fact when one reads through the information one finds that there was no proven link. So that one goes. 
The last case that happened in the last decade was at the Cardrona ski field in 2006 and I agree that this case was a valid legitimate issue. There was a problem with effluent overflow that went into a stream. The drinking-water supply was not registered the treatment comprised filtration and ultraviolet treatment the cartridge did not comply with the requirements of the drinking-water standards for New Zealand and the efficacy of the ultraviolet treatment was not known. 
That 2006 case is a fair enough example and only the other three examples occurred the last decade; everything else happened 20 years before that. I say to members that the world has moved on in the last decade. We now live in a world where there are standards of accountability responsibility duty of care and informed consent. We can see that the incidents of water-borne outbreaks have been very rare in the last 10 years and certainly what happened prior to that is all very historical knowledge. 
The cost of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is massive. We have heard the Government figures. It gave wide-ranging figures—from $50 million to $275 million. Local Government New Zealand which opposed the bill—and still opposes it—estimated that the cost would go right up to $800 million. That is a massive amount of money. Who will take the brunt of that sort of cost? It will be the ratepayers and it will be the rural communities in particular. We have little rural communities that are paying massive amounts of money. Mackenzie District Council paid $3 million over its plan the Ashburton District Council paid $10 million and the Clutha District Council paid $20 million. This is big money. Really this bill is a sledgehammer. It will not fix up pipes that get broken. It will not fix up a problem that is not a problem to begin with. 
National supports voluntary compliance and the education of communities not this legislative approach that will not solve the problem. The Opposition thinks this bill is costly to ratepayers impractical and unaffordable. It is legislative overkill to the nth degree and we oppose it. 
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. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to join my colleagues in opposing the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and it seems really important that I start by expressing some concern about the drinking water in the debating chamber. Such was the invective of the member opposite Martin Gallagher that I think the drinking water may well have been endangered. I wonder whether it needs to be changed after listening to that speech from the other side. 
I speak on this bill in the knowledge that in my 2 years in Parliament few other bills have caused such an outcry from the rural people and the territorial local authorities of my electorate—Aoraki. I am worried about the misrepresentations made in the House today. First of all the whole of the Health Committee worked very very hard to improve this bill—not only advisers but all parties worked very hard. It is disingenuous of an earlier speaker to suggest that the improvement was all down to New Zealand First and the Green Party. In fact considerable work was done by all parties. 
I want to help out the member opposite who said he was not as learned as Dr Jackie Blue by explaining what this magazine is. It is the Food Safety Authority magazine  
Food Focus 
 and it states: “Campylobacterosis is an important food-borne disease in New Zealand and has the highest level of notifications. There are a lot of cases of this particular problem but most of them are food-borne cases.” Let me begin with a reference to a statement made by the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson during the first reading of this bill: “Water can never be made completely safe.” Well that is a good start. But the Minister prefaced that statement with the word “Although” and then set about explaining just how much money he wants the ratepayers of New Zealanders to pay to reduce the potential risk to public health. 
This is where I need to make a very strong point. The National Party does not oppose clean safe drinking-water for the people of New Zealand wherever they may live. This party does not oppose that but we believe that in many respects this bill is set up to fail. The cost is so high that it simply will not happen. We know this because we had significant representations made to the select committee. When the Minister referred the bill to the Health Committee he said it must be reported back to the House by December 2006. There are a number of reasons why that did not happen. Partly it was because of the concerted effort of all parties in the select committee process. There were 47 submissions and we heard 26 of them. Most came from local authorities and water suppliers which is no surprise. But do not be mistaken by the summary of support numbers. It is really hard for anybody in New Zealand to say that he or she is opposed to improved drinking-water—it is unlikely one would find anyone who would say that. But there are people who oppose this bill and the nature of it because they believe it represents significant financial risk. 
Back in January of this year the Ministry of Health put out a press release entitled: “Steady improvement in the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water.”—interesting considering it came up during the select committee process. It stated: “The quality of New Zealand’s drinking-water is improving steadily according to the  
Annual Review of Drinking-Water Quality in New Zealand 2005 
 which provides the most up to date information on the quality of our tap water.” We know there have been improving numbers of registered water supplies. We know that drinking-water supplies have been improving prior to this bill. Dr Paul Prendergast the Ministry of Health’s principal public health engineer said that the figures mentioned in the review did not “necessarily mean that 24 percent of New Zealanders received unsafe drinking-water in 2005 it simply means water suppliers did not demonstrate that the water was safe.” That is an important point to make. 
There were significant flaws in the development of the rationale for this bill; the most important being the Government’s belief that there will be significant improvement in gastrointestinal infection rates as a result of the bill. But the ministry was unable to demonstrate clear unequivocal links between a lot of these gastrointestinal problems and drinking-water supplies. 
I acknowledge there have been significant improvements to this bill but I just want to spend a small time on considering some of the objections to the bill. Both Federated Farmers and Rural Women surveyed their members. The concerns of Federated Farmers mirrored the concerns of many other submitters; 31 percent of their members responded to the survey which is quite a bit higher than it would usually get. In answer to the question: “Do you support the introduction of the drinking-water standards as compulsory compliance standards?” there were some interesting responses. Some people talked about being in an area where their water was graded E but there had not been outbreaks of disease. Some people thought the standards were overkill. Some said it seems an expensive way of over-regulating for schemes that are perfectly safe and have little risk of becoming dangerous. Some said the voluntary standards work; there is minimal ill health related to drinking-water standards. 
They were also asked: “Do you think the bill should proceed despite the financial costs outweighing the benefits?”. Some said in response that if they cannot prove the benefits outweigh the costs then forget it. They said: “We live here by choice”—in rural areas—“and accept that risks apply.” There was a feeling that the costs would add to the overburden on ratepayers. They said: “Costs will increase our rate bills.” I think generally the people in rural areas have said yes they want safe drinking-water but they want it in an affordable manner. I really want to reiterate that that is National’s point. 
When the National Party decided to oppose the bill it did so knowing that after all of the work that Local Government New Zealand undertook during the select committee process it had retained principled opposition to this bill. Local Government New Zealand worked with us in the select committee and achieved significant improvements to the bill. Those improvements have been covered by some of National’s previous speakers so I will not go into those again. The fact that Local Government New Zealand has principled opposition to the bill tells me that the costs it has estimated for its long-term council community plan expenditure both operating expenditure and capital expenditure are too high. 
I will touch briefly on the per capita costs for capital expenditure for long-term council community plans that will hit some councils very hard. Two of these councils—Queenstown and South Taranaki—have a figure exceeding $4000 per capita. Five councils—Marlborough Rangitikei Thames Coromandel Timaru and Whangarei—have per capita expenditure of more than $2000. That is just one example of what these particular councils and what Local Government New Zealand are concerned about and one of the reasons why Local Government New Zealand retains its principled opposition. 
I will close there because the rest of the debate will give us plenty of opportunity to further canvass during the Committee stage of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland 
Bill read a second time.