Goodhew Jo: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11945] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I want to start straight off by saying: “No Minister we haven’t heard about the costs to New Zealand of water-borne diseases because they haven’t been adequately measured.” Every time we hear Government members say we need clean safe drinking-water free of campylobacter we realise they are off on the wrong tangent because people can get campylobacter from eating chicken as well. Water-borne diseases have not been adequately measured so that issue has not been mentioned. 
I want to wrap up the debate by mentioning something I did not have time to cover in my previous speech. Submitters to the Health Committee expressed very significant concern about this bill and its effects. They said the effects would not be fully known until the bill was implemented. Therefore the select committee has recommended that the Minister be required to make annual reports to Parliament on the implementation of the bill for 5 years following its enactment. I must say that that is a fairly good safety mechanism but it is an indication that we could not be satisfied that the information before us was giving us adequate information about how the implementation of this bill would affect ratepayers. 
I reiterate that the National Party supports all practicable steps being taken to improve drinking water and drinking-water standards and that where there is a clear link between contaminated drinking-water and resultant infections—that is the essence of the matter—the water suppliers be required to take action to prevent reoccurrence. That is absolutely fair and reasonable. However it is our view that avoidance of all risks carries a very high cost for ratepayers. In particular I have said that some drinking-water suppliers are incredibly pristine and we hear from local residents that the water tastes fantastic but these particular drinking-water suppliers have learnt that they may have to treat that water; so it may not always continue to taste that way. They may have to do that because there is a possibility of contamination to that drinking-water supply. 
The National Party has repeatedly said we believe that New Zealanders who live in rural or remote parts of the country accept the risk that living in those parts of the country carries with it. We could use the example of trampers. They tramp in all manner of places and carry with them little pills or whatever to make sure the water they drink is treated prior to drinking. In other words they are mitigating the risk for themselves. We just say that New Zealanders do not mind sorting out how to look after themselves but they are thoroughly sick of nanny State—the Labour-led Government—telling them that it knows better how to look after them. 
Included in the significant improvements in the bill is that suppliers who are implementing an approved public health risk-management plan will be deemed to comply with the requirement to take all practicable steps to comply with the drinking-water standards. I have already touched on the longer time frames that align with the Local Government Act 2002 and the creation of the new category of drinking-water supply that gets around the supply to stock of drinking water called the rural agricultural drinking-water supply. There are different and more flexible obligations in that section. 
The select committee addressed other things. There were concerns about back-flow regulation which would impair the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems. That has been addressed in the bill as well. There are now clearer definitions of procedures for consultation on the adoption of the new drinking-water standards and a clearer definition of a temporary drinking-water supply. It would be fair to say that in the initial reading of the bill many of the submitters took one look at it and thought: “What a bureaucratic minefield! What a huge amount of cost for us!”. We have managed to assuage some of those concerns but despite all this Local Government New Zealand remains principally opposed to this bill. We should heed its concerns. We know that the chairperson Basil Morrison thinks this may well cost over $800 million. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.