Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): My goodness that microphone turned on quickly. Thanks Madam Chair. I just wanted to rise and take another call in relation to some of the conversations that we've had across the floor today. I think for me as a member of the Health Committee we looked absolutely at the public health issue versus the affordability issue—which the Hon David Clark did mention. What we essentially had in our minds at that time is actually what a disaster this was—the failure of the drinking-water system and as a consequence affordability. We gave the opportunity within the amendments to justify and explain whether they couldn't afford but public health was the key there. So there needed to be some very serious consideration as to why they couldn't afford this financially. So that was the first thing.I guess the other aspect that I recalled—it's been a while so I did go back and have a read—the 28-day period that we amended this bill from was from a period of three years and as my Minister has said that was pretty much unworkable. It was pretty much in a time frame where essentially probably faxes were still around—maybe not even faxes. But the old system was that something would be gazetted and then within three years the wheels would grind and the infrastructure might possibly shift and there would be consultation. Now what we very clearly saw in Havelock North was that we needed to act quickly. There needed to be a serious and immediate response and the principal legislation was very clearly not cutting it. So we've had to come in and fix that up which we've done.The other matter that I wanted to talk about was I guess that it's a shift in responsibility although not particularly a shift in responsibility—that probably makes no sense.Hon Michael Woodhouse: No it doesn't.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha ha! Section 69V—so this is in regards to a water safety plan; a person or organisation needs to create a water safety plan depending on who the entity is. Previously that public safety plan basically required the person who created the safety plan to report as to whether they were achieving the standards. So they would write their safety plan and then they'd say And yes we've passed thank you." So what we've done is we've moved it from the author and moved it across from the drinking-water supplier—the person who supplies the water—across to the drinking-water assessor. That essentially gives an expert person the ability to come in and look at the safety plan and ensure with I guess objective eyes essentially that this safety plan is appropriate and that the standards have been met.So while it's a relatively minor tweak it's actually quite significant in terms of just that extra level of accountability because what we really didn't want to see happening is that you know a water supplier says "Oh yeah we're pretty good. We're fine. We'll be OK." and then we have a Havelock North happen. So we were really clear about just making that change to sort of support another fresh set of eyes looking over. And I think what that does is it's fair but it's also a safety mechanism being built into the Act just to ensure that in reality these assessors who are trained professionals are getting a good look at the standards. Thank you Madam Chair."