Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12140] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s acknowledgment of the members of the Health Committee and the work that was done on that committee. There is no doubt that the bill as reported back from the select committee is an improvement on the bill that went into that committee. 
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that we think good progress has been made under the previous regime by water suppliers around the country and we expect that more progress will be made in the future. But the National Party as it has stated in its minority opinion in the committee’s report on the bill is concerned about the financial consequences this legislation will have on small rural communities. We believe there is still underlying uncertainty about the cost-burden of this legislation. Of course everybody in this House would want everyone to have a top-notch water supply and would want to eradicate all risks. But the fact is that the cost of achieving the eradication of all risks would be prohibitive to every community. Therefore we have looked at the balance of what the uncertainties are for rural communities and water consumers. 
We have also been concerned about the inability of the Government to provide firm costings in relation to what will fall on smaller communities and local governments. We heard for example that when the Government introduced the bill it estimated the costs would be between $50 million and $275 million. Local Government New Zealand’s estimates were up to $800 million. We know that at the 2006 water and wastewater conference the Ministry of Health advised that the cost could actually be $300 million. So there is some confusion about what costs will fall on communities. Similarly we think it was progress in the select committee that approval of plans and actions will be covered under the concept of “all practicable steps”. The definition of “all practicable steps” is detailed in the bill for all people to see and it sets out a number of criteria. Included in those criteria is the addition of affordability. The National members on the committee were particularly keen to make sure affordability was one of those criteria. 
But here is another area of uncertainty that has concerned local government—and I should remind the House that Local Government New Zealand remains principally opposed to this legislation because of the various levels of uncertainty and the impacts it might have on communities. One of its major concerns was how the affordability requirements might cut across community decision-making in terms of priorities as part of the long-term community consultation plan. Local Government New Zealand was quite clear that it thought that the decision on how priorities should be set in this area should very much be one for communities taking into account the other pressures those communities face. The Government has a fund to assist—an average I think of about $15 million a year—but it is a very significant burden that local governments may face. There is uncertainty about what costs might fall on consumers and district councils particularly in those smaller rural areas. 
We very much listened to the Minister’s point on the terms of water-borne disease but I restate what I said at the very beginning which is that the eradication of all risks would be hugely expensive and not practical. What we are looking to do here is to make sure that communities are aware of the importance of this but we must balance the cost to consumers and councils particularly in smaller rural communities. 
I think the bill has been improved in the widening of some of the definitions of the very small schemes etc. and the dates on which things must be applied. We have some concerns about the late addition of the rural water supply proportion. What is the name of that? 
Jo Goodhew 
: The commercial agricultural— 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The commercial agricultural section. There is some concern in local government that that may not prove to work as effectively as the Government may think it will. I suspect that in the years ahead Parliament may have to revisit some of the provisions in this bill if they turn out to be particularly onerous and burdensome on local communities. 
National thinks this bill has been improved by the select committee process. The select committee worked well but we still have concerns about the uncertainties related to cost particularly on how that might affect small rural consumers and councils.