Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Burns Brendon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5979] 
10.  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can he confirm that his review of the Drinking-water Assistance Programme to see whether it “aligns with Government priorities and provide(s) value for money in the health sector” will mean only the poorest of communities will soon be eligible for already funded money to make their water safe to drink? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is not clear what the member means by “the poorest of communities”. The programme is already weighted to more deprived communities over more prosperous communities. As I have said from the very beginning because we inherited $160 million of unfunded health services from the previous Government and $600 million of capital requests with little to meet those requests some programmes will be stopped some will be changed and some will be deferred. 
Brendon Burns 
: Has the Minister alerted his ministerial colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs that a $1000 per capita ceiling on contributions is proposed meaning that many small marae will be unable to bring their drinking water up to World Health Organization minimum standards or is this just another example of the Government ignoring Maori? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have had discussions with numerous colleagues on this matter including Minister Turia in particular. We have inherited a situation whereby this very important drinking-water subsidy is based pretty much on a “first come first served” basis. What concerns me is that a lot of lower-income communities many of them represented by members opposite may not be in a position to get those funds compared with communities that are more advanced. If the member wanted to represent many of those poorer communities he would be concerned that the scheme currently runs on a “first come first served” basis. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is the Minister aware of any other subsidy schemes that are limited to the poorest communities? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I am as a matter of fact. The previous Labour Government announced extra funding for sewerage subsidies in Budget 2008. They were specifically targeted to those who were ranked 7 and above on the deprivation index. We have to note that in health the deciles are the reverse of those in education which means that the previous Government wanted to target the poorest communities. I have no doubt that the member opposite does not want to subsidise water schemes for the richest coastal communities while poor people miss out. Mind you his leader wanted to pay the unemployment benefit to millionaires. 
Brendon Burns 
: Has the Minister consulted Local Government New Zealand which supported his earlier 3-year moratorium on meeting minimum drinking-water standards because of the costs but which now faces losing subsidies that the previous Labour Government put in place to assist it to make water safe? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is an allocation of funding. The subsidy is already targeted but some communities are better prepared to apply for money than others. This Government wants to avoid the risk that many needy communities will miss out. That is part of our consideration together with the quite substantial financial pressures that we inherited in the health portfolio. I remind the member that we came to office with $160 million of health services for which there was no money. 
Brendon Burns 
: Does the Minister still maintain that providing safe drinking-water is a local government responsibility and how can he say so when the Government commits to meeting minimum standards delays them for 3 years and then cuts already established funding to help councils and small communities meet the world standards his Government is committed to meeting? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The problem with the member’s question is that members of the previous Government went around the country saying: “We’re going to apply these much higher water standards and we’ll subsidise you to do it.” but it turned out that the cost of that for local government was many hundreds of millions of dollars more than the previous Labour Government pledged. We are trying not only to make sure that the most disadvantaged communities in New Zealand are assisted but also to ensure that communities are given time to assist with their planning in this area. Things are very tough for many of our poorest communities and I do not think they want a substantial increase in their rating burden at this time. 
Brendon Burns 
: Will the Minister accept that when a serious outbreak of water-borne illness occurs he will not be able to wash his hands of responsibility? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the member knows responsibility in that area rests with local government. There is still a requirement on local government or water suppliers to take remedial action where they want to. I would be surprised if the member truly believes that we should have a water subsidy scheme for millionaire communities. If that is what Labour wants it is not what it did in 2008 but it is consistent with Phil Goff’s pledge to pay the unemployment benefit to the wealthiest New Zealanders.