Clark DavidHEALTH (DRINKING WATER) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I'm pleased to speak to the second reading of this bill because it is an important step in the ongoing improvements to the framework for drinking-water safety in New Zealand. I want to thank everyone who made a submission on this bill including those who came to speak to the Health Committee in person. I also want to thank the members of the Health Committee—including in particular chair Louisa Wall—for their work and for their thorough consideration of the bill and the 30 submissions that were made on it. It is pleasing as Minister to see the bill returned to the House with a unanimous report from the Health Committee. As the House will recall in August 2016 there was a drinking-water contamination incident in Havelock North. Following that incident and the disabling of people and the illnesses that it caused the Government launched an inquiry into Havelock North's drinking water. The inquiry recommended a suite of changes subsequently to the current regulatory framework for drinking water. This bill draws on some of the recommendations of the inquiry with a view to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Part 2A of the Health Act. The bill is a part of interim changes to drinking-water rules in anticipation of the introduction of a new regulatory framework for drinking water and that's currently being developed in the context of the Three Waters Review. A large majority of submitters I'm told endorsed the bill and generally expressed support for its provisions. However some qualified their support by noting that further legislative change is in the pipeline. As an example I've been given there was overwhelming support from submissions for clause 10 which amends the powers of drinking-water assessors and designated officers. There has been some confusion among people performing official functions under Part 2A of the Act; this clause clarifies the relationships between the drinking-water specific powers in section 69ZP and the Health Act's general powers of entry and inspection provided for in sections 128 and 128A. There was clear support from submissions for clause 4 which deletes unnecessary references to the operator of ports and airports. This amendment is seen as a tidying up of Part 2A of the Health Act. Some concerns were raised regarding clause 7 which removes examples of reasonable steps suppliers must take to contribute to the protection of water sources. Some submitters were concerned that if the examples were repealed it would leave staff working in the front line with little certainty as to whether a drinking-water supplier had taken reasonable steps. The submission stressed that if the section was repealed the publishing of guidelines to aid staff as to what amounts to reasonable steps should be developed without delay. There were multiple concerns raised regarding clause 9(4) which removes the requirement for accreditation of drinking-water assessors. These concerns were largely about ensuring that systems for quality assurance are maintained in drinking-water management. Submitters suggested that if the requirement for accreditation of drinking-water assessors is removed a national quality management framework should be developed and implemented in its place. After considering the bill and the submissions the Health Committee did recommend eight changes to the bill. The first amendment concerns section 69H All practicable steps". That section contains various elements that must be considered when determining whether or not a step is practicable under the circumstances and some submissions expressed concern noting that in its current construction section 69H gives higher priority to the availability and affordability of steps than to the protection of public health. The amendment rebalances the criteria so that consideration of public health is given the same priority as the availability and affordability of steps to be taken. I welcome that suggestion from the select committee. In addition at present a person who wishes to rely on unaffordability as a reason for a step not being practicable need only claim that it's not affordable. The Health Committee agreed with a submitter that the provision also needs amendment and recommends that the provision of evidence be a requirement for any supplier who wishes to rely on unaffordability. That has the effect of requiring that the drinking-water supplier justify to the drinking-water assessor why it is not practicable that they should take a particular step. Other amendments would change sections 69S and 69V which outline a drinking-water supplier's duty to take all practical steps to provide an adequate supply and to comply with the drinking-water standards. The committee recommends removing the references to all practicable steps so that the duty is simply to provide an adequate supply and to comply with the drinking-water standards. This makes the upfront nature of the duties clearer and is consistent with the findings of the Havelock North inquiry. While the headline duties on suppliers will be clearer the defence available to them in section 69ZZS will remain unchanged. A further amendment to section 69V in new clause 7A(3) relates to the implementation of water safety plans. At present the legislation can be read that to comply with the drinking-water standards suppliers need only implement their water safety plan to their own satisfaction. This issue was raised during the submission process as lacking appropriate scrutiny and the Health Committee recommends that section 69V(2) is amended so that implementation of the water safety plan must be to the satisfaction of the drinking-water assessor. Another amendment proposes strengthening the provision of water safety plans. At present in development of a water safety plan a supplier must identify the critical control points of their supply. This has caused challenges in the enforcement of Part 2A of the Health Act and the drinking-water standards as there is no explicit requirement that suppliers must actively manage critical control points. This amendment clarifies this requirement stating that they must manage and control those critical control points as well as identifying them. The final amendment relates to the notification of changes to the drinking-water standards. Section 69P requires that the Minister of Health ensures that there has been adequate consultation as well as notice before amending or adopting new drinking-water standards. Currently section 69P(1) states that adequate and appropriate notice of the intention to issue adopt or amend the drinking-water standards must be published in a daily newspaper in each of the cities of Auckland Wellington Christchurch and Dunedin. The Health Committee recommends updating the public notice provisions by allowing publication on an internet site. So in conclusion the vast majority of those who submitted supported the intention of the bill recognising that these are relatively minor improvements to the current legislative framework. Many of the suggestions made during the submissions process were constructive and have contributed directly to the strengthening of the bill. The bill as reported back from the committee will further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Part 2A of the Health Act and in so doing help to promote the safety of New Zealand's drinking water.Can I thank again the committee for the constructive way they have engaged in these very technical issues surrounding drinking water. I think that the bill itself with the changes also around consultation—progressing it through the House is something that everyone will agree with because it is common sense and it's good to have a bill going through which strengthens our regime and has widespread agreement. We cannot continue in a situation where tens of thousands of New Zealanders every year are getting sick by preventable means without strengthening our drinking-water regulation. I want to thank again members from both sides of the House on the committee for the constructive role they have played in making sure this legislation progresses."