Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): If I can just respond in a timely fashion to the questions that the Hon Shane Jones has raised. The first series of questions is related to the application of common sense to standards—if I can characterise them in that way. How will we ensure that when standards are set the reach of the bureaucracy is not into people's homes—perhaps with one water tank an elderly couple on a fixed income? How will we ensure that any future water standards don't impose unreasonable costs on those when any harm done would be to those people who are supplying their own water?—if I understand the member's question correctly. I have some disappointing news for the member in that that question is not directly addressed in this legislation. But I have heartening news as well which is that he's part of a sensible common-sense Government that plans carefully for the future and seeks to ensure that New Zealanders are supported with common-sense standards and that there is not reach into insensible areas. We need to carefully balance affordability and availability because there would be little point in shutting off a water supply that was keeping people healthy when there was no evidence that it was going to do them harm and it was certainly not going to do anyone else harm. That's the balance that will be struck as we work our way through I'm sure water standards—Hon Shane Jones: Sensible Minister.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —over time. I thank the member for his kind words. But this is the essence of it. This bill itself doesn't change what the standards themselves can say but it does affect things like the notice period and the consultation period to make sure that we're doing the process parts of that correctly to make sure that people do get to have a say when we are setting the standards. So that goes in some way to the member's question because if we didn't have that consultation period it would be quite likely I think that—or maybe not likely; maybe that's an unfair aspersion to be casting on our fine bureaucrats in Wellington. But it would be possible that with the stroke of a pen some change could be made that had unwitting consequences further down the track and that's why we have wider public consultation periods. It is really important that we actually get the wider view in case there's something that's happening out there that hasn't been taken into account in what might be theoretically very very high and mighty and correct thinking. I'm confident that the processes we're setting in place with this bill will indeed ensure just that—that we do have a process that takes into account the different factors and the different principles but that has a reasonable consultation period for dealing with the questions that are at hand.In terms of efficacy the question about whether poorer councils in particular might be disadvantaged by any changes in this legislation I think is something that in my understanding the Health Committee members have wrestled with carefully and I'm sure Health Committee members if they wish to can speak to that in the debate—balancing those things to make sure that you know if somebody wants to claim that they can't afford a change they have to demonstrate that that's true but then it is a factor that that can be taken into account as standards are implemented. But of course the test as the member says that health should be the primary driver here to make sure that the drinking water is safe is one that we want to see applied. We do want to see evidence that we have safe water that people aren't going to get preventable illnesses when they simply could be prevented through taking action that is affordable to those who are supplying the water because in New Zealand we regard ourselves as a First World country. We regard ourselves as a country that can afford to keep our citizens safe and healthy through the supply of good water.I've no doubt that in the future some investment will be required in our infrastructure and how that's done is a matter of policy and challenge for the Government because we have—as the member points out—inherited a situation where the water standards are not up to scratch where the situation was allowed to occur under the previous Government's watch. I think all of us realise without making this a political thing that there's a challenge we've inherited and a problem we've inherited that we're determined to address to make sure that we have a sensible process in place to address those water standards and ensure New Zealanders have water that is safe to drink. Let's not be alarmist about it. The water that people are drinking today is the same as they were drinking yesterday. But it is a problem we can fix and we must fix.