Goodhew Jo: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12143] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and I want to say that since this bill’s introduction to the House I have had a keen interest in it. Can I begin by making some comments in response to both the Minister and the previous speaker Maryan Street. The Minister said that this was “a good bill made better”. Actually this is a complicated bill that carries with it significant financial risk to ratepayers. And yes the bill has been made better—it is now much better—but clearly there are still some concerns about it. 
The previous speaker Maryan Street talked about the half a million people in New Zealand who have drinking water that is not safe enough. But then there is an undetermined—in fact a not mentioned—number of that half a million people for whom the standard has not been determined. This is yet again another example of imperfect science or really of no science at all. So what if 100000 of those 500000 people had water that did not comply and 400000 had water that we could not determine whether it complied? [ 
Interruption 
] Well there we go. Again we have a lack of science. 
I must say right from the word go that the National Party is very very supportive of New Zealanders having clean drinking-water. 
Moana Mackey 
: You’re not showing it. 
JO GOODHEW 
: If the member opposite would like to listen she will understand that our opposition to this bill is about our belief that eliminating all risk may cause significant ratepayer financial burden that simply will mean it will not happen. When this bill was signalled to the communities of my electorate of Aoraki they were very quick and very keen to raise their concerns with their member of Parliament. For example the Mackenzie District Council which covers about 3000 people has predicted that it will cost $3 million to comply with this legislation and that is over the 10 years of its long-term council community plan. Despite reassurances from the ministry officials that the capital assistance and technical assistance schemes will actually help it the reality is quite otherwise because in fact the council did apply for funding and like all other South Island applicants in the first year got nothing. There was no money for any of those applicants in the South Island. 
 The Waimate District Council manages the Waimate urban water scheme and also six rural water schemes. There are also two private schemes in the Waimate District Council. The council has also raised significant concerns with me about the capital assistance and technical assistance system and its ability to assist the council to improve its drinking water because like many other councils around New Zealand the Waimate District Council does want to improve its drinking water. The naming and shaming approach of the previous speaker will not endear her to rural New Zealand. 
The Timaru District Council is very concerned about this bill also on a number of counts. The capital funding in the long-term council community plan per capita for the period exceeds $2000—that is it exceeds $2000 per person in the district. That is the case with six other territorial local authorities. In fact in the case of two councils—Queenstown Lakes District Council and South Taranaki District Council—the capital funding is more than $4000 per capita. 
In National we were somewhat relieved when rural councils’ concerns about having to treat drinking water—and millions of litres of water intended for stock—were addressed. There is a new category in the bill called a rural agricultural drinking-water supply which has different and more flexible obligations. This seemed to address many of the concerns. But wait there is a fishhook in the interpretation of this particular category. The Ministry of Health used the clarifying words—which unfortunately may be a huge risk to those particular water supplies—that this category is a water supply in which 75 percent or more of the water supplied “is used for the purposes of commercial agriculture” and “does not enter a dwellinghouse or other building in which water is drunk by people or other domestic and food preparation use occurs;”. Now I am told that the problem is that many lifestyle blocks do not qualify as commercial agriculture yet there is stock on those lifestyle blocks and that stock uses a significant amount of the water. So there is every possibility that the 75 percent cut-off will not be reached and those particular water schemes will be forced to apply the drinking-water standards to millions of litres of stock water. 
The Timaru District Council and other territorial local authorities are very very concerned about this particular part of the bill. They are also concerned about the affordability part of “all practicable steps”. Although section 69H in new Part 2A reflects that the steps taken must be practicable in light of the person’s financial position the difficulty is raised that it actually looks at the long-term council community plan process and—as National sees it—supersedes that process to consult with communities and decide on priorities. So I ask whether the bill will dictate that all other priorities must give way to drinking water. How will the ratepayers feel if when they are consulted and they say they want more money spent on waste they are told: “No if there is money in the bank for investment in our particular territorial local authority it must be spent on drinking water because you obviously can afford it.”? 
The Kaipara District Council described it thus: “The proposed legislation overrides the community engagement principles of the Local Government Act 2002 and disenfranchises our people.” Members should remember at this stage that Local Government New Zealand remains philosophically opposed to this bill. National thinks that this is with good cause. Local Government New Zealand has not gone out and had a programme of opposition to the bill. This was mentioned by the previous speaker and she is absolutely correct in that respect. Local Government New Zealand’s opposition is principled because it does believe that the elimination of all risk carries too high a financial burden. 
The path for this bill through the select committee process was arduous. The path was however assisted by significant numbers of submissions and in fact some very very good submissions from Rural Women New Zealand from Federated Farmers of New Zealand from Local Government New Zealand and from a number of the drinking-water suppliers who comply with this bill already. These suppliers are in the main drinking-water suppliers that supply large numbers of people. That is perhaps because they are metropolitan water suppliers. It is not necessarily a good council - bad council division as the previous speaker suggested in the name and shame approach that she suggested for the Clutha District Council—I believe that was the council she was referring to. 
I commend all members of the Health Committee as did the Minister for pressing on to make the very many changes that were required in this bill. I am not sure who the previous speaker was referring to in relation to the Opposition saying that Local Government New Zealand was not consulted. Local Government New Zealand certainly played a huge part in the process in the select committee stage. But if as the previous speaker has suggested Local Government New Zealand paid such a large part in the process prior to the bill being introduced why were so many changes necessary when we got to the select committee process? It would seem that Local Government New Zealand had not been listened to until then. Local Government New Zealand worked through many hours of consultation and I commend the ministry officials for their openness to the suggestions to make this bill better. The bill has been improved as a result but Local Government New Zealand is still very concerned about the cost to ratepayers. 
In fact in respect of costs—and I will touch just briefly on those—when we first heard about this bill the costs were between $50 million and $275 million. It is another inexact science. That is an awfully big range is it not? Of course by the time Local Government New Zealand president Basil Morrison spoke at a conference costs had gone up to a possible $800 million. Even Ministry of Health staff at the 2006 water and waste conference said that costs could be $300 million. In conclusion I reiterate the National Party’s opposition to this bill based on the inexact science.