Street Maryan: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Street Maryan: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12141] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. First I would like to acknowledge the significant improvements to the bill that emerged as a result of the extensive and very thorough deliberations of the Health Committee. That is after all the process of lawmaking that we are engaged in. I also recognise and commend the huge contribution that supplies owned and operated by local government make to the provision of drinking water in New Zealand. 
Although the debate has tended to concentrate on the difficulties that suppliers may face in providing safe drinking-water we should not lose sight of the fact that 71 percent of the population is provided with water that complies with the drinking-water standards. Local government plays a very significant role in this by providing water through 545 suppliers to 83 percent of the population. However behind those figures is another important point. More than half a million New Zealanders use and consume drinking water that either does not comply with the standards or is of an unknown quality. 
The bill endeavours to promote equitable and reliable access to safe water for all New Zealanders. Why should we in this House settle for anything less? In this sense the bill is both about the half million New Zealanders who currently use water that is either of dubious or unknown quality and about ensuring that the large majority of New Zealanders who already receive safe drinking-water continue to do so. 
I would like to take this opportunity also to correct some misapprehensions on the part of some speakers who during the Committee stage commented that local government had been inadequately consulted on the bill. This is just plain wrong. First public consultation occurred during the late 1990s and local government participated in this process. Second Local Government New Zealand was consulted on the policy for the bill prior to Cabinet approval in 2000. Third partly as a result of input from local government Cabinet agreed to include a phased timetable for commencement of the bill for the bill to provide for flexibility in the way the legislation adopted the standards and Government specifically agreed that Local Government New Zealand be involved in the preparation of the bill. 
There are more examples. Fourth during the drafting of the bill the ministry worked with three key stakeholder groups to ensure their input. As well as Local Government New Zealand the ministry also consulted the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association and the Consumers Institute. Fifth Local Government New Zealand was also consulted when Cabinet considered some refinements to the policy for the bill in 2006. Sixth additionally the technical group convened by the ministry to assist the process of reviewing drinking-water standards also included representation from local government. 
Also cited in the Committee stage was an early draft discussion paper on Rangitikei’s capital expenditure forecasts that Mayor Bob Buchanan had sent to the Opposition. This document was in fact quite different from the final paper that was presented to the Rangitikei District Council in which the issues raised by Mayor Bob Buchanan were absent. What was also not acknowledged was that at a later date at a meeting of mayors called by Local Government New Zealand in the lower North Island to discuss this bill Mayor Bob Buchanan supported the risk management approach for achieving the drinking-water management measures taken by the Government. All of those items should dispel any myths being perpetrated by the Opposition that local government was not engaged and not sufficiently consulted on the drafting of this bill. 
Local Government New Zealand did advise the Health Committee of its policy of so-called principled opposition to the bill. The fact that local government did not engage in a public programme of opposition to the bill and worked very closely with officials to develop amendments to the bill so they could accept it means that this really was no more than opposition in principle in particular to national standards. Also the fact that many of the major water suppliers in the North Island supported the bill was not publicised. The Auckland meeting of mayors and major water suppliers providing water to some quarter of the total New Zealand population voted almost unanimously to support the bill and this was never publicised by Local Government New Zealand. 
To conclude local government was involved in the development of this bill and a number of its features including many of the significant amendments agreed to during the select committee process reflect that involvement. It is noteworthy that opposition to the bill from some quarters in local government has often been led by councils that have a particularly poor track record in terms of their investment in drinking-water quality. One lower South Island council for example that made repeated and inflated claims about the cost of compliance is the only council in New Zealand where in 2005 all of the 26 suppliers that it operates did not comply with the standards. 
In fact parents who are sending their children to one of the schools in that area should be very concerned. We saw photos and evidence whereby a primary school in that area nearly closed because of the poor quality of the drinking water available to children in that area. That needs to be fixed and this bill will do it. It is not sufficient or good enough in a country like ours to have schools providing substandard and in fact unhealthy drinking-water to children. That should not be tolerated anywhere. The Opposition’s refusal to recognise that point goes to its discredit. 
This council that I am talking about will need to make significant investments whether or not the bill is passed in order to remedy years of neglect and the structural deterioration in some of its treatment plants. If it costs that council it is its own fault quite frankly. However generally speaking those councils that have taken a responsible approach to maintaining and improving their supply infrastructure and capacity—and let us be very clear here that is the majority of councils—already do comply with the standards. These councils will face little cost and will have even less difficulty in complying with this bill. There is no reason why quality public drinking-water should not be an expectation of every member of the New Zealand public. We are not a Third World country and we should be able to turn on the tap and get reliable drinking-water. That is what this bill is about. It has taken into account the requirements that local government has sought in order to spread the cost of necessary improvements over a working period of time. But this bill needs to pass for the sake of the health of New Zealanders. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.