Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the third and final reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I think anybody that works in a hospital or A & E knows just how common gastroenteritis can be in the community. But when like many of us you've actually had gastro you start to think back about the things you've eaten but you never actually stop and think about the water that comes out of your tap and I think that's because so many of us rely on the safety of the water as provided by our drinking-water suppliers. So this is why I think Havelock North was such a big issue because in 2016 we had an outbreak of campylobacter in Havelock North and of a town of 14000 residents about 5500 people got sick. Around 45 people were subsequently admitted to hospital and it's thought that this outbreak may have contributed to four deaths. So this was an incredibly significant occurrence in our country.So what the Government of the day did is that they established an inquiry looking at things in two stages. The first one looked at what the direct causes of this outbreak were and also those that were responsible for providing the drinking water. But then the second part of that inquiry looked at that wider regulatory context and also how we could make sure that this never happened again. So what this bill does is it puts in place some urgent changes to Part 2A of the Health Act in response to the health inquiry's recommendations. But these are more early changes because more substantive changes are going to follow as a result of the work on the wider Three Waters Review. I think drinking water is also tied in and interrelated with how we manage our waste and our stormwater system as well.So what we're going to do just in this bill is focus on some of those issues around the timeliness of how we can improve our drinking-water standards but also look at some issues around implementation and compliance. So one of the main changes that this bill does is it looks at the timeliness of changes to drinking-water standards because under the current legislation the Minister isn't able to issue any new standards or amend standards unless they're satisfied that consultation's been carried out over a period of at least three years. Three years is an incredibly long amount of time when you're wanting to put in place some urgent changes or we've got emerging technology. So what this bill does is it removes the reference to three years from the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Act but it doesn't remove that obligation to consult.The other thing that was meaning that it was taking an incredibly long time to change the standards was that the standards couldn't come into force until at least two years after the date of publication in a relevant Gazette notice. So what this amendment does is it says that OK now it's only 28 days after that publication—a Gazette notice—before they can come into force and it makes it a lot easier and a lot faster to be able to bring through those changes that are needed. It also just in some other minor changes updates the way in which notices are published because previously notices had to be published in daily newspapers in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin. I know certainly for us in Invercargill we don't really read the dailies much of those other cities' papers; we would read the Southland Times sometimes the Otago Daily Times. But the point is that these changes mean that the Minister can put something in the newspapers of the area likely to be affected the newspapers circulating there as well as putting the information on a public space on the internet so people can actually readily access any notices. So it just brings it up to date which is incredibly important.But I think the thing is that for those people that are worried that what this means will be that suppliers don't have enough time to get ready for the changes that are made basically it doesn't take away the duty that the Minister has to have to consult in terms of making sure that all those affected are taken into consideration. These standards are still disallowable instruments which means that the Regulations Review Committee can recommend that they be disallowed if it's thought that that needs to happen. So I think what these changes do is that they balance the need to be able to make those changes in a timely manner but it also means that the adequate consultation can occur.There's a few other changes that this bill does just in terms of repealing references to designated ports and airports and what that does is it removes some unnecessary compliance costs for some of those ports and airports and also clarifies that water suppliers have to implement their water safety plan in accordance with the timetable set out in the plan so they need to actually get on and do it as specified. It also has some changes around the fact that basically only individuals now can be appointed as drinking-water assessors and not agencies and it provides for a register of those individuals as well.But one of the other changes I think's particularly important is around the changing definitions of all practicable steps" because I think the onus in terms of implementation of these plans is that it's important that we consider what "all practicable steps" means because under the previous legislation what they had to give due regard to in particular was affordability and availability in terms of any of those steps and that actually placed that much higher than considering what some of the risks of harm would be if you didn't do those steps. So what the change now does is it gets rid of that hierarchy and actually front-loads so that when we're thinking about all practicable steps what they're asked to consider is the nature and severity of the harm that may be suffered if the result is not achieved and also the current state of knowledge about likelihood of harm that will be suffered. I think it's really important when we're weighing up public safety that practicable steps takes into account issues around affordability but it also takes into account the fact that if you don't do those steps then there may be some significant risks out there in the community and those need to be weighed up equally rather than just reverting to the fact that you're saying it's not practicable because it's not affordable.So what this bill also introduces are some extra requirements so that if a person is saying "I can't put in place that step because it's not affordable" they have to actually demonstrate that it's not affordable; they can't just say that. So what they have to do is keep a full and complete record of their financial position and make that available so that they can state that this is the issue and here's the evidence why. So it's actually a much tougher test in terms of threshold of thinking about weighing up what's practicable and what's not in the context of implementation.So I think basically summing up where this bill's been—basically Havelock North the inquiry raised significant concerns about the way our drinking-water systems were managed around the country and that was a lot of issues around compliance and implementation. So while the substantive changes that will come through in due course will need to await some of those reviews in terms of Three Waters what this does is make some early changes so that if the Minister wants to amend or introduce or change drinking-water standards they can be done in a very very timely manner. It also looks at some of those issues around compliance and implementation and makes sure that there is a greater requirement in terms of those things moving forward.So it's a really important bill and I commend this bill to the House."