Hodgson Pete: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12138] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I am pleased to speak at this third reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by expressing my appreciation to all members of the Health Committee and in particular to the chair of the Health Committee. The committee worked very hard over an extended period of time to review the concerns of submitters and to forge consensus amendments to the bill in order to address those concerns. The committee has taken a good bill and made it better. 
As this bill begins its third reading it is appropriate to reflect on its purpose and on the important role of drinking water and the means of its supply. Drinking water as well as being one of the most fundamental requirements needed to support life is a vital component of a sustainable and innovative economy. I would not mind a glass now actually. 
This bill will close what is currently a significant gap in the legislative framework for a sector with assets valued at approximately $5 billion. The sector is critical to sustaining life and protecting public health critical to preserving the image and reality of “100% Pure New Zealand” and critical to tourism and our export-led economy. In this light I would like to reassure the House that although New Zealand has to date managed to avoid major and fatal outbreaks of water-borne disease—unlike some other developed nations—we still have significant and ongoing issues and risks with the quality of our drinking water. This bill will bring New Zealand into line with most other OECD nations by providing a clear legislative framework for water quality. 
Some of those people who have expressed their opposition to this bill seem determined to flaunt their ignorance of science. Not content with the dihydrogen monoxide incident they have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence of any problem with disease caused by drinking water in New Zealand. Although it is recognised that the science on this matter is not straightforward and that there are a number of uncertainties to be considered this does not mean that the overall picture is unclear. Of the nearly 14000 cases of campylobacter notified to health authorities in 2005 only 2.5 to 4.5 percent are thought to be attributable to drinking water. However as far as giardia and cryptosporidium are concerned they cause an additional 2100 cases of reported disease each year—in other words a total of 2600 cases of notified enteric disease each year. 
Incidentally it is well recognised that gastroenteritis is consistently and significantly under-reported. The best estimates are that in New Zealand something like only 5 percent of cases are formally notified. This leads to a further estimate that the total number of cases of water-borne enteric disease each year is probably closer to 52000—in other words about 1000 tummy bugs a week; 1000 tummy bugs a week are caused by water. This is not inconsistent with the estimate from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research of 34000 cases. The institute states that that figure is probably an underestimate. 
To return to campylobacter it has been found in almost all surface waters rivers and lakes etc. in New Zealand that have been examined. Fortunately the level of water-borne disease due to campylobacter is able to be kept low because the treatment processes used for treating drinking water in New Zealand which this bill seeks to validate are very effective in killing off campylobacter. The level of treatment is not available to many of the small rural water supplies. The Government’s $154 million drinking-water assistance programme is designed to deal with this problem and is concentrating on improving the extent to which small rural water supplies are adequately treated so that rural populations receive as equally good-quality water as the people living in towns and cities. 
I would now like to turn to the bill and more important to the nature of its provisions and how they will address the kinds of issues I have just referred to. Although many features of the bill will contribute to improved drinking-water management two elements of the bill are particularly important and world class in terms of both their technical content and the philosophy that underlies them. In combination they represent ongoing quality control and proactive quality assurance. Rather than waiting for a significant water quality failure with the potential for a serious disease outbreak and then taking corrective action this bill embodies a preventive approach to protecting the public health. In so doing the bill seeks to actively manage risks in a way that is commensurate with the level of risk the nature of potential harm to public health and the availability and cost of managing such risks. The two elements whereby the bill embodies these approaches are the ability for the Minister to adopt drinking-water standards and the requirement for public health risk management plans. 
The standards which are based on the best international benchmarks for water quality specify the maximum acceptable values for a range of contaminants and pathogens. The standards also define the monitoring requirements that suppliers must have in place to demonstrate they are complying with those standards on an ongoing basis. Both the standards and the monitoring requirements are based on rigorous science and are regularly reviewed and updated. In an ideal world these standards would be compulsory. However in recognition of the genuine concerns raised by many of the small suppliers the bill requires suppliers to take only “all practicable steps” to comply with the standards. 
The second key feature of the bill is the requirement for public health risk management plans. These are plans that provide a framework within which suppliers can identify all potential threats to the safety of their supply and then systematically provide for mechanisms to prevent reduce or eliminate those risks. The value of these plans is that their ongoing implementation will give high levels of confidence to the quality of the water provided by the supplier. 
I endorse the recommendation of the Health Committee that giving effect to a plan which has been approved by an independent expert will be taken as grounds for demonstrating that the supplier has taken all practicable steps to comply with the standards. This legislation is very much in keeping with the best traditions of public health law. It seeks to ensure the safety of a vital public good that is essential for all New Zealanders. It takes a preventive proportionate and risk-based approach to managing the quality of drinking water and its supply. The bill will therefore make a valuable and lasting contribution to the protection of public health.