Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I note that I'm the fifth speaker on this bill today and yet only the second to not hold a medical degree of some sort and I think the first to not have had a career in health at all. So please excuse me as a mere lawyer but one who has a great interest in one of the topics that this relates to and that is planning and the role of local government. As we know this bill as it was considered by the select committee way back when in some other Government was really about moving the decision making away from local governments to the DHBs because it was seen as a health issue. I'm pleased to hear that across the House there is support for this sentiment—and that hasn't changed with Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 38 that's been tabled today—that this isn't a decision for councils to make. That is because in part local councils are very political organisations. They have a limited funding base being their raters who are also their voters so it's often difficult for councils to make decisions that a large and vocal part of their communities may not be in favour of. That is despite the evidence that we've already heard from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall and that we've also heard from Shane Reti on the other side of the House. I will say though that this is an interesting debate and I do agree with what Shane Reti said before about the role of district councils and it being a health issue. But of course arguably planning which is something that district councils do do and something that I am familiar with is really all about public health. The two are inextricably linked. So if we think: where did both planning and public health come out? Arguably it's 1854 and the cholera outbreak at Broad Street in Soho where—if anyone is a fan of The Crown they will have seen the great episode with John Snow. Or have I got my shows mixed up? Was it the Queen Victoria show? [Interruption] It was the Victoria show—it was Victoria sorry—1854. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I know the member is going to come right to the bill. RACHEL BROOKING: I am coming back to the point sorry about that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Quite quickly.Hon Member: I was wondering where we were going there.RACHEL BROOKING: Ha ha! It was a terrible embarrassing distraction. But the point is that the councils do work with a lot of health-related issues or things that in the end relate to health. So that is waste water. If we don't have good conditions around how we treat waste water and where it ends up we end up with health problems; around where we put roads we can end up with health problems; around our ability to use active transport—if we don't have good places for people to walk cycle even we end up with health issues. So even though councils do work with these health issues at one stage it is hardly appropriate that the decision on fluoride the decisions about the evidence on fluoride is made by a health authority.So stepping through how these water systems work in the beautiful city of Dunedin the water that's used as potable water eventually is from the beautiful Lammerlaws. There's a whole lot of—Simon Court: Through lead pipes—through lead pipes no less.RACHEL BROOKING: No most of Dunedin's water supply is from the Lammerlaws—beautiful tussock grasslands—I think it's Chionochloa rigida. And then that water from the tussocks that's piped into reservoirs it's treated and then it's piped into people's houses. Of course that's quite a complicated process in itself. It's governed by a lot of different things. There's the Local Government Act that councils have an obligation to maintain water services; that's section 130. And of course when they're reporting in their long-term plans water services are a group of activity that must be reported on. Of course councils have to get resource consents to take that water in the first place. And then very importantly and relevant to all of this they also have to comply with water standards.I turn to Part 2A of the Health Act 1956 and this is to do with drinking-water standards. It is this part of the Health Act 1956 that the bill as considered and reported back from the select committee aims to change. So it is at section 69A that the Minister can issue drinking-water standards and also that water suppliers have duties that include compliance with the standards. That's all in the Health Act in this Part 2A.At section 69O I'd like to draw attention to that because it is that the Minister may issue adopt amend or revoke drinking-water standards." And very importantly and relevantly to what the select committee was considering at section 69O(3) of the Act it says "Standards issued or adopted under this section … (c) must not include any requirement that fluoride be added to drinking water." The bill as introduced and as considered by the select committee would repeal that section.Then the bill as introduced and reported back from the select committee amended those provisions around drinking-water standards. However now we have this SOP 38 that's been tabled in the House today and it's going to be moved to go back to the select committee to look at. Marja Lubeck: What does it do?RACHEL BROOKING: So what this SOP does as we've already heard is it changes the DHB provision to the director-general but also what it does is it inserts a new Part 5A. So rather than relying on those water standard provisions it's bringing it into its new part. This then comes after Part 5 of the Act which is "Artificial UV tanning services" and before Part 6 which is "Regulations". So it's its own part of the Act is what it's recommending. And you'll see that there's this very clear difference that it's the director-general not DHBs making decisions but otherwise much of the wording—and it's put into new parts—is the same. So that is that before making a direction the director-general must consider scientific evidence and that's the same wording as was reported back from the select committee.Then at what would be new section 116E(2)(b) in SOP 38 it says "whether the benefits of adding fluoride to the drinking water outweigh the financial costs taking into account"—and here is the change. It says "(i) the state or likely state" which is new "of the oral health of" and instead of "its residents population" it's now "a population group or community where the local authority supply is situated." And the other provisions are very similar. Another change that I'm sure the select committee will be interested in is new offence provisions at what will be new section 166J. So most of the provisions remain the same with that change from DHB to director-general and this different mechanism in terms of how the Act works. I note Shane Reti's comments earlier about consultation and the provisions relating to consultation with the local authority which Dr Liz Craig also spoke about. They remain. So there is a local view in the process and that will be at new section 116G in clause 4A.We know that the issue here is a scientific health issue that should be made by health experts and we know that what we're concerned about is the oral health of children. It's appropriate that the decision maker is the same decision maker that makes those water standards and that is the Director-General of Health. This will lead to some differences in particular in Otago and Southland. So whilst Dunedin City Council is mainly fluoridated Invercargill City Council is also fluoridated Clutha District Council is and its urban population—Central Otago District Council Gore District Council Queenstown Lakes District Council Southland District Council and you Madam Speaker may be interested to know that Waitaki District Council all are not fluoridated at the moment. We've heard some concerns around the funding and I note what I just read out before that financial issues are part of the criteria for the director-general to consider. Just briefly I'd like to comment on the process and note that when I was a lawyer the Hon Christopher Finlayson did a similar approach with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. That was something that as a member of the legal community it was very useful to be able to see exactly what the Government was thinking about changing and to be able to go back to the select committee process. And of course we'll have another new interesting process with the replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act soon. Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to talk on this bill."