Duynhoven Harry: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11940] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Part 2 is a very small part of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It contains five clauses two of which are about consequential amendments and revocation. There has been quite an amount of talk from the Opposition in regard to this legislation. I seem to recall that the council in my own area—New Plymouth District Council—made a submission on this bill which said it supported the bill. I am told the council supported it because it has already made the necessary investment. That was very controversial at the time—years and years ago—and it resulted in a complete overturning of the local council a change of mayor and all sorts of things. The council made a big investment in water quality and the reason for doing so was that the people in the area wanted to have an assurance of water quality. I think water quality is very important. 
There was much debate earlier about the small local authority - type water schemes the importance of them and the costs involved. I think a bigger cost has not been taken into account by some of those who have spoken against this bill. For example what is the cost to our tourist industry of an outbreak of a water-borne disease in one of our small tourism resorts—perhaps in a skiing village a lakeside resort a motor camp or something like that? What would be the cost in terms of the reputation of New Zealand of a severe outbreak? Those issues are all very easy to bleat about. 
The bill has some particular provisions. One of the things that Mr Ryall talked about was that a particular supplier may be supplying water from a bore to his or her neighbour next door. He asked about the current impositions on that supplier and what they will be after the passing of this legislation. Well Mr Ryall forgets about the Building Act. The Building Act actually requires the owner when water is being supplied to a building to be able to assure himself or herself that the water being supplied is of sufficient quality for human consumption. In other words if a person owns a building that person has to be able to assure himself or herself and any tenants or other people to whom water is being supplied that the water is of potable quality. If someone is supplying water under an ancient agreement that has been in action for some years at the moment—as the member said—it may be done by grace and favour. The water may be supplied in return for a couple of bottles of wine a year or what have you. That is a contract if you like—and it may not even be formal—between the supplier and the user. If there is no written contract—and presumably a written contract would spell out the quality of water—then I guess that the Building Act provisions will have to be the ones that apply. 
Additionally the bill has a lower threshold so that if a grace and favour supply—the goodwill kind of supply—is to fewer than 16 permanent residents it falls below the threshold of “neighbourhood drinking-water supply” and so is not covered by the majority of the provisions in this bill. In other words I guess the matter reverts back to being one of common sense and cooperation between neighbours on such a supply. It goes back to the Building Act provisions which say that the owner of a building is responsible for ensuring that the water supplied to that building is up to the quality required for human ingestion—that is potable water. 
Therefore I think that much of the static that we are hearing about this bill is on the basis of “We don’t want to pay an additional cost to ensure that our water is safe for people to drink.” We should seriously look at that attitude and ask whether it is a suitable attitude for the 21st century.