McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Hang on Mr Speaker I've got to get my fashion gear [Face mask] off find my hearing aids and clean my glasses before I can start. Now having said that I'll get on with the job!DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can sympathise with the member.IAN McKELVIE: I want to take us back in history a bit because I've had quite a bit of experience with water in my time and I want to go back to when I was fairly small. I remember going with my father to fix the old MacEwans H2 water pump and in those days you had a cylinder and a water pump—for those who don't know—and they had bucket washers in them. It took a fair while to bend those bucket washers round and get them back in the hole to make the water—and they had to be watertight you see so it took a while to get that sorted. So that was my first experience of water. The second one was when I had to do it myself but luckily things have improved significantly since then. We now have Grundfos water pumps with all sorts of stages in them and they work really well.So this bill: I then I guess after all those experiences with a water pump became a mayor and I had experience of the Ministry of Health trying to inform councils how they should run water supplies and the standards they should adhere to and frankly the Ministry of Health had no idea how to do that and they were—in my view—very poor at it. So I think that from my perspective the Minister has made a very good attempt through this bill to rectify some of the problems that we've had in the past with the way we've regulated water supplies. So I commend the Minister for doing that and I think that for the large part of New Zealand's community I have no fear. But what I do have a fear for is the fact we are looking at in the course of—and we don't know the answer and there are so many things we don't know the answer to in this House when we put legislation through here. One only has to go back to the anti-money laundering legislation and the cost of that or back to the food safety legislation and the cost of that to small operators to see what happens when we impose legislation across the board without considering or without being able to consider actually in the course of the select committee process the potential cost to those organisations that are below the average in scale. So we end up with a disproportionate level of cost being imposed on small users—and I want to get to the small users in a minute—but that for me is a great concern.I notice that Taumata Arowai is developing what we term three acceptable solutions relating to rural agricultural suppliers roof water suppliers—and there are many many thousands of roof water suppliers in New Zealand—and spring bore suppliers to create a pathway to compliance for small suppliers. I think that's a great challenge and I'd be worried about the impact that might have on those small water suppliers whether they be rural or urban because there are many properties where they supply their own water as well. For those of you who have been fortunate enough to have a tank water supply there comes a time when they smell quite bad and you've got to get out and clean the tank out. That's the signal that I've always used to keep my water supply clean. Done me no harm to date but none the less that's the challenge we face and that's the challenge that this organisation is going to face as it tries to implement the recommendations that have come from the select committee and as it tries to implement the recommendations contained in this bill.I just want to get on to the rural schemes for a bit because I have this—and it's been well expressed within the House tonight the concerns around the smaller rural schemes. And the reason I used that example about fixing the water pump earlier was that those water pumps—modern ones now—actually supply a large number of properties. The question I've got and I guess it's a question for the committee stage but the question I've got around this is: what happens when the Minister through her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) gives communities I think up to seven years to rectify these issues? All that will do in my view is give them seven years to get rid of the connections and they'll end up not having to comply with this legislation because frankly that's what's going to happen.So the other question I've got around this is: what happens when you have a connection to a house you disconnect the connection to the house and shove a hose on the garden tap and stick it in the tank? Does that have the same impact and how on earth are they ever going to trace that sort of behaviour? So I would be very concerned about how we might ever police the issues that arise both out of the issue that Christopher Luxon and Penny Simmonds have raised in the course of the select committee process—and I understand ACT as well—and that is around these small rural water suppliers and not only rural but they also supply some urban communities as well the small suppliers of under 30 connections that we are talking about through the SOP introduced by Mr Luxon excluding from the main part of the bill.Now it's quite possible I guess that if they were excluded from the main part of the bill they could then be part of the consideration for the development of the acceptable solutions relating to those suppliers at a later date and that might be a much more sensible way of dealing with it. But I do have great concerns about as I said earlier the compliance costs that we're going to impose on small rural water suppliers and small water suppliers supplying everything from marae to the example used by the member for Havelock North a little earlier—with the two houses hooked up to the tank that actually performed better than the Havelock North water supply which was quite interesting. I was surprised actually but not really because I actually have two grandsons who lived in Havelock North too and spent their life drinking my water and they had no problem with the Havelock North water either. They were immune to anything that Havelock North could have done to them and that was probably caused by the same thing! But it is kind of interesting where we might get to with this stuff.So I do think that the water regulator part of this bill is logical and I think it's a very good initiative because it will give some stability around New Zealand. But I've got great concerns around how we connect or how we integrate those small water suppliers into it and how we then integrate as it says it's going to do at a later date those people with roof supplies and other forms of water supply—which I think will be extraordinarily difficult to get control of and I don't know why you'd want to actually because I think it's been said in the House a number of times already tonight: those suppliers are actually very safe and very secure and we've had very little problem with them despite the imagination of some in the House. So the bill does very little to influence the quality of water that many many people collect and then drink. And as has also been said in the House you can quite easily provide a filter for the cleaning of that.The other thing that amuses me a little bit and I shouldn't really raise it here but the interesting thing for me is that if you start to fluoridate and fluorinate these water supplies just imagine how long the old ewe will last! You know if you've got a fluoridated water supply pumping around the farm imagine what will happen to the age of old ewes and cows in New Zealand—they'll live for ever! Anyway we can't support the bill for the reasons outlined and I only hope that when the time comes the SOPs that are introduced by Mr Luxon do get accepted by the Government. Thank you.