Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:11870] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill I say that the National Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed to it because firstly it puts an undue burden on the consumers and ratepayers of New Zealand; secondly we believe that the Government has overestimated the health issues associated with drinking water around the country; and thirdly we believe that the Government has no appreciation of the practicalities of how its proposals will affect New Zealand communities. 
The first thing National in Opposition did when this bill came forward was to look at the costings involved with the burden that this legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers. If one were to take a step back one would find that the most interesting thing about this bill is the continual opposition of Local Government New Zealand to this legislation. This is a Government that apparently prides itself on listening to and consulting with Local Government New Zealand yet it is pushing through this legislation in the face of opposition from that organisation. This opposition was expressed as recently as in the last few days when the president of Local Government New Zealand Basil Morrison expressed considerable concern about the cost burden that the legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers quite unnecessarily. 
To go back to the cost I say that the Government’s original estimate on the cost to ratepayers was as low as $50 million. But it originally advised the Health Committee that its estimate was between $50 million and $275 million. So that is the estimate—between $50 million and $275 million! But wait for this we subsequently heard at the Health Committee from the Ministry of Health staff that the 2006 Water and Wastes Association Conference increased the estimate to $300 million. So it is no wonder that the National Party Local Government New Zealand and large numbers of ratepayers and consumers are saying that this bill which has not proven its necessity in any way will be a significant cost on New Zealand ratepayers of in the Government’s estimate anywhere between $50 million and $300 million. We suspect that it is at the much higher end because Local Government New Zealand advised the select committee that the bill as introduced could have cost up to $800 million in terms of the burden that councils and local government would have to face despite the fact that there is no strong argument that the public is necessarily at risk. The officials gave us various numbers on cryptosporidium and campylobacter but these are things that are also borne on food and are not necessarily related to water supplies and the select committee received some quite significant evidence on that matter. 
A very good story was brought to us by a mayor of one of the communities. I think he was the mayor of Feilding. He said that he got all this evidence of several hundred people in his community contracting various illnesses because of drinking water. He actually tried to locate where those cases happened and he could not do it. That is my recollection of the advice that we got at the select committee—and I can see that Dr Coleman agrees with that. So we do not think these numbers are as good as we would like them to be. Certainly when the Government gives an estimate that it could be anywhere between $50 million and $300 million we know that there are some real problems associated with this bill. Having said that I point out that the National members on the select committee have worked to try to improve the situation for consumers and ratepayers. We have managed to convince the Government that if it is going to push this legislation through then it should make affordability an important part of it. We managed to convince the Government that very small water schemes should not be subject to the level of oversight and cost burden that was originally proposed. 
It became clear from listening to Government members on the select committee that they had no appreciation of how small community water supplies work in rural communities. The burden that was going to be proposed by this legislation was significant. When I lived in a rural community at Thornton Beach I got my water from my neighbour who had a bore. I was his only customer other than his cows. The costs restrictions burdens and obligations that would have applied under this legislation to the chap who supplied me with my water would be significant. 
We had a very good case study come from a lady in Pauatahanui near Wellington—near Porirua. She came and talked about the seven or eight neighbours who relied on the spring on her property. She supplied the water to these people. As she took us through her understanding of the obligations and the burdens that she would face it became clear that there would be significant risk to many people not from the quality of the water but from the fact that the supplier would turn the tap off because the obligations and burdens would be so significant. 
I think that we worked well on our committee to make sure that those sorts of remedies could be fixed. But even with those changes Local Government New Zealand remains opposed to this legislation. It is strongly concerned about the costs it would put on ratepayers and water consumers. The question that has to be asked is this. When this is a Government that so prides itself on working constructively with Local Government New Zealand why is it continuing to push through legislation that Local Government New Zealand says will be costly quite unnecessary and way beyond the risks that are applied to consumers? 
During the rest of this debate the National members who contribute will be taking the House through not only the cost issues and the uncertainty and the difficulties with that but they will be taking the House through the concerns we have about some of the health evidence given to the committee that tried to describe the level of the risk. Thirdly we are going to touch on the fact that Local Government New Zealand—which the Government so prides itself on having a good relationship with—was strongly opposed to much of what has been proposed in this legislation. National members will also touch on improvements that would be beneficial including the fact that amendments have been made to enable a future Government to have timelines that might better reflect the ability of local government to respond in light of the significant costs that Local Government New Zealand says will befall not only consumers but will befall ratepayers in various communities around the country. 
The concerns of Local Government New Zealand were considerable. According to long-term council community plans—LTCCPs—the funding shows that 20 councils will have to spend over $2000 on a per capita basis and some will have to spend more than $4000 on a per capita basis to comply with this legislation. That is why it is so important to put affordability into the criteria for the requirements to comply with the legislation—and we put those in. A number of councils were very concerned about that matter. Marlborough Rangitikei Thames Coromandel Timaru and Whangarei in particular were concerned about the costs that various users would have. 
National members will talk about that because a review of the long-term council community plans across the country revealed that over the next 10 years $2.7 billion will need to be spent by local government much of it as a result of what has been proposed in this legislation. That is a very significant burden on local government ratepayers when the consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water they are getting. The consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water because the vast majority of them are aware that quality is always a trade-off between cost and benefit. We believe that it is a trade-off that consumers and ratepayers should be making rather than having a heavy-handed expensive proposal put on them by central government. 
As I said earlier in the remainder of the debate National members will not only take the House through the three key areas of how improvements have been suggested by us at the select committee but also how the cost the health evidence and the lack of consultation and cooperation with Local Government New Zealand mean that the House should not support the progress of this legislation.