Kedgley Sue: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12147] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill. On behalf of the Health Committee I would like to say that we gave one of the most exhaustive considerations to this bill. We have made a series of very very substantial proposed amendments to it. I think we have probably consulted more with submitters particularly Local Government New Zealand on this legislation than on virtually any other legislation that has come before a select committee. I think the committee did very very good work as did the officials in terms of trying to understand the concerns of Local Government New Zealand and to make amendments to meet its concerns. I want particularly to compliment Andrew Forsyth and his team—the officials who worked on the bill. They spent literally months meeting with Local Government New Zealand to discuss its concerns and working out ways in which those concerns could be met. I really think the Health Committee and the officials did an excellent job with this bill. 
I think that every single submitter as I recall made the point that water is too important to be left to a voluntary standard to be left to the free market as essentially the National Party seems to be advocating. It is very hard to understand why anybody would think that something as fundamental to life and to our health as water could somehow operate with a voluntary standard and be left completely to the free market to decide whether it would wish to comply with that standard. So there really was not any dispute that I recall amongst any submitters on that point. I am frankly surprised that the National Party is still advocating voluntary standards and a free market for the supply of water in New Zealand. 
However a lot of concern was expressed by many of the submitters particularly Local Government New Zealand about their opposition to the bill in its original form because they were worried about the effect that the costs of complying with the legislation would have on rates. Councils up and down New Zealand came to the committee with very concerning estimates of how much it would cost their ratepayers if the legislation was to be fully implemented. Some of them argued that it would effectively bankrupt their authorities. 
We took their concerns extremely seriously. None of us wants to pass legislation that will bankrupt local authorities in New Zealand. As a result the committee made a very substantial number of amendments. My understanding is that Local Government New Zealand now is basically extremely satisfied with the bill; as well it might be because really we have met all of its major concerns. We have created a new category of rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers with much more flexible obligations in respect of their drinking-water standards. We have created a new definition of neighbourhood drinking-water supply based on the number of people supplied. We have amended all the time frames which Local Government New Zealand was concerned about so that they are aligned with the Local Government Act. We basically defined the term “all practicable steps” as Local Government New Zealand requested us to do to take into account the issue of affordability. We have required the Minister to undergo a 3-year consultation period before amending a drinking-water standard. I could go on and on about the changes but I would say that we worked incredibly closely with Local Government New Zealand. It was a very good example of the Government and the select committee and local government working in partnership in trying to sort out the problems and issues that they were concerned about. 
I think it is important that water quality is mandatory that there is a national mandatory standard for drinking water and that it is not simply left up to the free market. There was dispute as to what extent there had been a problem with our water in New Zealand. There were varying issues about the number of campylobacter and cryptosporidium cases and so on and how much of a problem we have had. But the point is that we are being warned that in parts of New Zealand particularly Canterbury we will face issues around the water supply and they will become ever greater because of the expansion of dairying. A Canterbury University professor Wally Clark pointed out that as a result of the growth of dairying campylobacter cryptosporidium and previously little-known diseases had become commonplace in Canterbury. Indeed South Canterbury has the highest rates of campylobacter in the world. Basically he warned that if the proposed new irrigation scheme went ahead potentially there would be huge health effects in respect of water and the possible degradation of aquifers serving residents in Christchurch. 
Whatever people say about the quality of our water in the past the fact is there are very real threats to the quality of our water particularly as more and more of New Zealand farming converts to dairying. Environment Canterbury has just released an annual report showing that 60 percent of dairy farms in Canterbury did not comply with their effluent discharge consents; they are in breach of their discharge consents. What will that result in? That will result in the contamination of our water supplies. Thank heavens we have this bill which requires a mandatory standard for water and states that it is no longer sufficient simply to leave water quality standards up to the free market. It puts in place an effective regime but it is not an onerous and Draconian one. It has been worked out with local government in a way that reduces the costs on local government. 
I think that this is an example of where MMP has resulted in better legislation. Having smaller parties like New Zealand First the Green Party and the Maori Party on the Health Committee meant that the bill was not just rushed through as it might have been in the past. Legislation under first past the post was frequently just bulldozed through and rammed through select committees. Now under MMP and with the balance of voting in the select committee when smaller parties are concerned about issues raised by submitters as we were with this bill we can make sure that those concerns are given the utmost consideration. It was particularly those of us from the smaller parties—although the Labour members were equally happy to cooperate—who required ever more extensive consultation with Local Government New Zealand. We extended the deadline on a number of occasions. I think we have come up with legislation that we can be very pleased with and it seems that Local Government New Zealand is pleased about it too. Thank you.