Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) Link to this

I move, That the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill has been reported back from the Health Committee, which recommended that it be passed with amendment. I thank the committee for its careful and extended consideration of the bill.

The bill was introduced back in June last year, largely to deal with the risk posed to the over half a million New Zealanders receiving water from community drinking-water supplies that do not meet the New Zealand drinking-water standards. The bill builds on the Government’s overall drinking-water strategy, but it marks something of a departure from an emphasis on encouraging rigid compliance with standards, and represents a move towards a more flexible risk-management approach. At the same time, the bill brings in legal duties, as opposed to the current situation with purely voluntary standards. With these duties also comes substantial assistance from central government. The Drinking-water Assistance Programme allocates over $150 million of technical and capital assistance to drinking-water suppliers in order to help them to manage the risks associated with their water supply.

The drinking-water standards were developed for a reason. Most other developed countries have minimum standards in law, providing specifications as to what constitutes water that is safe to drink. The New Zealand standards are based on the World Health Organization guidelines. When the water now going to half a million Kiwis does not meet standards, it is for a reason—such as faecal contamination.

The risk from water is manifested in two main ways. First, we have the highly visible outbreaks. New Zealand has, on average, 16.8 water-borne disease outbreaks a year, which affect a total of 100 or 200 people. However, the much larger problem is the individual cases. Rather than an identified and quick, obvious cluster of cases, the problem I am talking about here is that of individuals getting sick from their water and often not even realising that water was the cause of their illness. These cases are the iceberg lurking below the surface; they do not attract much publicity, but the Institute of Environmental Science and Research estimates that there are 18,000 to 34,000 such cases in New Zealand every year. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research expects that further work will reveal this to be an underestimate.

Since I introduced the bill, we have had new figures on drinking-water quality. The annual review of drinking-water quality in New Zealand, released in January, showed that there are still over half a million Kiwis receiving water from supplies that do not comply with standards. Also agreeing with us is the OECD, which in April called on New Zealand to bring in minimum standards. Although recognising the recent improvements in the proportion of the public water supply that fully complies with drinking-water guidelines, the OECD stressed that further progress would require nationally consistent and legally binding drinking-water quality standards. The Consumers Institute of New Zealand added its voice to the chorus this year by urging that the bill be passed as soon as possible.

At the same time, since the introduction of this bill several events in the real world have underlined the need for action. For example, in February there were two separate incidents where sewage leaked into Lake Wakatipu, the drinking-water source for one of New Zealand’s premier tourist destinations. This spill came on the back of two other spills in Queenstown in 2004. One of the 2004 spills was of particular concern, as it entered the lake about 30 metres from Queenstown’s water-supply intake. Luckily, on those occasions the water supply did not appear to have been contaminated, but we should bear in mind that it was a sewage spill like this that was suspected to be connected with an outbreak in Queenstown back in 1984, which resulted in an estimated 3,500 people becoming sick, with some hospitalisations and half of the town’s children being too ill to attend school. It is worth noting that the Queenstown water supply still provides no protection against pathogens such as cryptosporidium. The source of the supply is still a high-risk one. There have been a number of other contamination events around the country since the bill was introduced, many of which have resulted in consumers needing to boil their water to ensure its safety.

Since the bill’s introduction, the Health Committee has had a highly fruitful submission process, which has resulted in a number of improvements made to the bill. Many local councils that run drinking-water supplies were concerned about the potential for the bill to interfere with their planning processes and priorities under the Local Government Act. I acknowledge in particular the huge amount of work that Local Government New Zealand has put in to examining the bill and working with the select committee to come up with constructive suggestions for improvement. This has occurred not only at a national level but also at a local level, where mayors and their councils have made the effort to appear before the select committee and to attend special meetings around the country to work through the issues.

One of the key amendments recommended by the select committee as a result of this process is an adjustment to the duty on suppliers to take all practicable steps to comply with the New Zealand drinking-water standards. I should note at the outset that this duty, in keeping with the bill’s focus on risk management rather than rigid compliance, was not an absolute duty in the introduced bill. It did not state that the supplier must comply with the standards; it said that the supplier must take all practicable steps to comply. This echoed the approach used in the Health and Safety in Employment Act, which does not state that employers must ensure the safety of their employees; rather, they must take all practicable steps to ensure their safety. Accidents happen, but an employer or a drinking-water supplier must be prudent.

The select committee’s amendment gives suppliers more certainty as to what they need to do by saying that if they have a public health risk-management plan and if they are implementing this plan, they are deemed to be taking all practicable steps to comply with the standards. This means that a supplier knows in advance what it has to do.

Another key amendment recommended by the committee is an adjustment to the dates at which suppliers become subject to the bill’s legal duties. The bill as introduced has a staggered timetable. Larger suppliers are generally already meeting the bill’s requirements, so an earlier compliance date for them is appropriate. Smaller suppliers need more time, so the bill as introduced gave them until 2012 before the legal duties started to apply. Local Government New Zealand was concerned about the compatibility of these dates with its planning process under the Local Government Act. The select committee has thus recommended an adjustment to those dates that will give suppliers between 1 and 2 additional years.

A further amendment from the committee to which I want to draw the House’s attention would lead to the creation of a special category of drinking-water supply to allow for the special circumstances of rural agricultural drinking-water supplies. The bill as introduced provided flexibility for such supplies to employ efficient solutions. For example, if treatment were necessary, then the supply could use point-of-entry treatment for each house on the supply.

I need to touch on another of the committee’s recommendations, which is to introduce the concept of affordability as a consideration when determining whether a supplier is complying with the bill’s duties in relation to the drinking-water standards. As I have already said, the duty to comply with the standards is not an absolute one; instead, suppliers are required to take all practicable steps to comply. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) Link to this

In rising to speak to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, I say that the National Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed to it because, firstly, it puts an undue burden on the consumers and ratepayers of New Zealand; secondly, we believe that the Government has overestimated the health issues associated with drinking water around the country; and, thirdly, we believe that the Government has no appreciation of the practicalities of how its proposals will affect New Zealand communities.

The first thing National in Opposition did when this bill came forward was to look at the costings involved with the burden that this legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers. If one were to take a step back, one would find that the most interesting thing about this bill is the continual opposition of Local Government New Zealand to this legislation. This is a Government that apparently prides itself on listening to, and consulting with, Local Government New Zealand, yet it is pushing through this legislation in the face of opposition from that organisation. This opposition was expressed as recently as in the last few days, when the president of Local Government New Zealand, Basil Morrison, expressed considerable concern about the cost burden that the legislation would put on New Zealand’s ratepayers and water consumers, quite unnecessarily.

To go back to the cost, I say that the Government’s original estimate on the cost to ratepayers was as low as $50 million. But it originally advised the Health Committee that its estimate was between $50 million and $275 million. So that is the estimate—between $50 million and $275 million! But, wait for this, we subsequently heard at the Health Committee from the Ministry of Health staff that the 2006 Water and Wastes Association Conference increased the estimate to $300 million. So it is no wonder that the National Party, Local Government New Zealand, and large numbers of ratepayers and consumers are saying that this bill, which has not proven its necessity in any way, will be a significant cost on New Zealand ratepayers of, in the Government’s estimate, anywhere between $50 million and $300 million. We suspect that it is at the much higher end, because Local Government New Zealand advised the select committee that the bill as introduced could have cost up to $800 million in terms of the burden that councils and local government would have to face, despite the fact that there is no strong argument that the public is necessarily at risk. The officials gave us various numbers on cryptosporidium and campylobacter, but these are things that are also borne on food and are not necessarily related to water supplies, and the select committee received some quite significant evidence on that matter.

A very good story was brought to us by a mayor of one of the communities. I think he was the mayor of Feilding. He said that he got all this evidence of several hundred people in his community contracting various illnesses because of drinking water. He actually tried to locate where those cases happened, and he could not do it. That is my recollection of the advice that we got at the select committee—and I can see that Dr Coleman agrees with that. So we do not think these numbers are as good as we would like them to be. Certainly, when the Government gives an estimate that it could be anywhere between $50 million and $300 million, we know that there are some real problems associated with this bill. Having said that, I point out that the National members on the select committee have worked to try to improve the situation for consumers and ratepayers. We have managed to convince the Government that if it is going to push this legislation through then it should make affordability an important part of it. We managed to convince the Government that very small water schemes should not be subject to the level of oversight and cost burden that was originally proposed.

It became clear from listening to Government members on the select committee that they had no appreciation of how small community water supplies work in rural communities. The burden that was going to be proposed by this legislation was significant. When I lived in a rural community at Thornton Beach, I got my water from my neighbour, who had a bore. I was his only customer, other than his cows. The costs, restrictions, burdens, and obligations that would have applied under this legislation to the chap who supplied me with my water would be significant.

We had a very good case study come from a lady in Pāuatahanui near Wellington—near Porirua. She came and talked about the seven or eight neighbours who relied on the spring on her property. She supplied the water to these people. As she took us through her understanding of the obligations and the burdens that she would face, it became clear that there would be significant risk to many people, not from the quality of the water but from the fact that the supplier would turn the tap off because the obligations and burdens would be so significant.

I think that we worked well on our committee to make sure that those sorts of remedies could be fixed. But, even with those changes, Local Government New Zealand remains opposed to this legislation. It is strongly concerned about the costs it would put on ratepayers and water consumers. The question that has to be asked is this. When this is a Government that so prides itself on working constructively with Local Government New Zealand, why is it continuing to push through legislation that Local Government New Zealand says will be costly, quite unnecessary, and way beyond the risks that are applied to consumers?

During the rest of this debate the National members who contribute will be taking the House through not only the cost issues and the uncertainty, and the difficulties with that, but they will be taking the House through the concerns we have about some of the health evidence given to the committee that tried to describe the level of the risk. Thirdly, we are going to touch on the fact that Local Government New Zealand—which the Government so prides itself on having a good relationship with—was strongly opposed to much of what has been proposed in this legislation. National members will also touch on improvements that would be beneficial, including the fact that amendments have been made to enable a future Government to have timelines that might better reflect the ability of local government to respond, in light of the significant costs that Local Government New Zealand says will befall not only consumers but will befall ratepayers in various communities around the country.

The concerns of Local Government New Zealand were considerable. According to long-term council community plans—LTCCPs—the funding shows that 20 councils will have to spend over $2,000 on a per capita basis, and some will have to spend more than $4,000 on a per capita basis to comply with this legislation. That is why it is so important to put affordability into the criteria for the requirements to comply with the legislation—and we put those in. A number of councils were very concerned about that matter. Marlborough, Rangitīkei, Thames Coromandel, Timaru, and Whangarei in particular were concerned about the costs that various users would have.

National members will talk about that, because a review of the long-term council community plans across the country revealed that over the next 10 years $2.7 billion will need to be spent by local government, much of it as a result of what has been proposed in this legislation. That is a very significant burden on local government ratepayers when the consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water they are getting. The consumers themselves are not objecting to the quality of the water because the vast majority of them are aware that quality is always a trade-off between cost and benefit. We believe that it is a trade-off that consumers and ratepayers should be making, rather than having a heavy-handed, expensive proposal put on them by central government.

As I said earlier, in the remainder of the debate National members will not only take the House through the three key areas of how improvements have been suggested by us at the select committee but also how the cost, the health evidence, and the lack of consultation and cooperation with Local Government New Zealand mean that the House should not support the progress of this legislation.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) Link to this

I found that speech, made by the Opposition spokesperson on health issues, the Hon Tony Ryall, to be rather sad—especially when two of the National members on the Health Committee are health practitioners. It is simply disgraceful that they do not support this bill, and I will tell the House my reasons. A family member of mine is a public health practitioner in Nelson. That community has been screaming out for this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, since 1993. I wonder whether health practitioners who work in rich, metropolitan areas are really aware of the causative link between the quality of drinking water and water-borne infections. If they went to Te Puia or Ruatōria, the community would tell them about the number of people affected. The kaumātua and kuia would say that they know there is a sickness there, and that they are losing family members to bowel cancer and stomach cancer. They say: “The drinking water here is patu but we can’t afford to fix it.” I wonder whether those health practitioners on the select committee actually listened to the submissions made by people from small communities. The answer is no, those people can never come to a Health Committee to talk about drinking-water legislation.

Why do those members not listen to public health practitioners in this country, who have the evidence on this issue and clearly point out the risks to the health of 500,000 or more New Zealanders who are currently exposed to drinking-water supplies that do not meet the drinking-water standards for New Zealand? Those standards are based on World Health Organization standards. We know about the outbreaks of water-borne illness that have happened in this country. The member Tony Ryall said he did not really think there were water-borne outbreaks. I tell him to get close to his public health practitioners and they will tell him. Let us look at campylobacter, for example. The member said it is linked to food, but it is linked to water, too. The rate of campylobacter in New Zealand is that of England’s. Is that acceptable? Is it acceptable for National members to simply sit back and say that the costs to local government of implementing the bill outweigh the public benefits to those in New Zealand? I do not think so. I do not want to be part of a Government that sits and does nothing about public health protection for the well-being of New Zealanders, and says the costs to local government are simply too high.

Members opposite bleat on about Local Government New Zealand having said the costs are too high. For goodness’ sake! This Government has committed $154 million over 10 years to help upgrade small suppliers of drinking water to areas with populations under 5,000. That is an astonishing contribution to benefit those small communities, which, of course, can never meet the cost of upgrading their water supply. The Opposition has health practitioners on the Health Committee and they know about the principles of public health, yet they say the cost of fixing our drinking water is too high. That is why National will do nothing, and will not support the bill. But the public health sector and the Ministry of Health have been saying to local government and local bodies that drinking-water legislation is desperately needed. They have worked on the issue for 14 years and have kept asking for this legislation to be brought to the House. The National Government did nothing during its decade in office.

We now have a bill before the House, but National will vote against it. That is simply shameful. I know that the two health practitioners opposite know about public health principles and know that something should be done about safe drinking-water. Do we ignore 61 cases at a school camp in Christchurch, 67 cases in Wainuiōmata, 187 cases in May 2001, 69 cases of viral gastroenteritis at a ski field—no National would not ignore that—and 49 cases at a school camp in Waikato? That is appalling, yet they use the argument that it is not necessarily linked to water. They say it could be food-based campylobacter. I cannot believe that. Those practitioners know that people who get campylobacter, which is one of the potentially water-borne diseases in New Zealand, can get fevers, headaches, abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting, and can have as many as 10 watery, often bloody, bowel movements daily. Is that all right? I say it is not all right. This Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill will fix that problem. Nothing else does. It will fix drinking-water supplies for our poor, deprived communities.

How can Opposition members sit there and say they are not going to do anything about it? I am proud to be in a Government that says it will do something about it. This bill will raise the standards of drinking water to compare New Zealand favourably to the OECD. The health practitioners on the other side of the House will say: “Labour did nothing, and how does New Zealand compare, on the league tables, with OECD countries?”. They know, but ask what we are doing about it. Yet they vote down a New Zealand public health drinking-water bill. Well, I say tell that to Dr Ed Kiddle, my brother-in-law in Nelson, who says: “For goodness’ sake! What are you doing? Get it into Government, get it into the law.”

The health practitioners sitting opposite know that it is simply not good enough for water-borne diseases to be so prevalent in New Zealand. I cannot believe the flip-flop the Opposition has done on this issue. The Hon Pete Hodgson was asked a question in the House and he replied: “I have had several reports. One was from the Hon Nick Smith last month, stating that 24 percent of our drinking water is unsafe, that that is ‘an appalling statistic’ ”—this is Dr Nick Smith from Nelson, who also said enforcement action is urgently needed. The Minister’s reply continued: “I received two other reports a few months earlier. Those stated that New Zealand is known for having the best standard of drinking water in the world, that it has excellent standards of drinking water, and that this is a problem that does not need fixing.” Those statements were made by Dr Coleman and Dr Blue. It is simply unbelievable.

The National Party is both deeply concerned about the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water and deeply unconcerned. If that is the nature of the National Party’s concern then it is no wonder that it has not managed to formulate any health policy of any credibility with public health practitioners in this country. National cannot even work out what it wants to do about New Zealand’s drinking water. I am very sad about that. Opposition members can carp on about this issue, yet New Zealanders in every community—not just small, rural, isolated communities but metropolitan communities—know the level of campylobacter outbreak. I was a councillor in Rotorua, where we had dairy faecal contamination of our drinking water. As local body politicians, we were deeply concerned about that. We knew there were kids coming to school with horrible symptoms who were infecting their schoolmates and feeling lousy. How could those children learn? How can those practitioners opposite say that 500,000 New Zealanders who are at risk from drinking-water supply systems that simply do not meet the standard do not matter.

This bill is long overdue. I am sorry it has taken us 7 years to get it to the House. I am proud it is here now. I know that public health units around the country are saying: “Hallelujah! Bring it on!”. I believe that once the local government sector really wakes up about the $175 million we are putting in to assist local government costs, it will meet this. They have said: “Bring in the standards. Bring in the bill, and we will comply.” The local government sector always folds in and likes the contribution for bringing water schemes up to speed so that New Zealanders drink safe drinking-water.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sure that during the Committee stage we will hear the clause-by-clause breakdown. I will be interested to take my turn.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) Link to this

Hearing Steve Chadwick’s contribution really shows us where the Labour Party is going wrong on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We heard a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-science and all sorts of bizarre explanations why there is actually a need for this bill. We heard stuff like the drinking water on the East Coast is giving people bowel cancer and stomach cancer. We heard all sorts of odd stuff in the speech from Steve Chadwick, who is standing in for the Minister of Health—that there was an outbreak and some sewage was poured into Lake Wakatipu back in 1984. One has to ask how this bill will actually stop sewage from being poured into Lake Wakatipu. That sums it up, really.

This bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is an answer to a problem that has not been defined. When one looks at the evidence for the need for this bill one sees it is not solidly there. We have to be cautious before imposing these massive costs—$2.3 billion over 10 years. It is amazing when one looks at the priorities of this Labour Government. It is so concerned with getting this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill through, but the reality is that we do not have typhoid in New Zealand. We do not have these really severe water-borne epidemics. We also do not have elective surgery. That is really the problem. We do not have a focus from this Government on the real problems in health.

The Government is rushing to do things like head up to North Shore Hospital and erect a statue. All the local failed list MPs were rolled out, to back up Helen Clark to put up a statue to shed light in places where darkness has descended. The Government is rushing to get this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill through and to spend all this money on purifying the drinking water, which, frankly, may or may not be contaminated; the Government does not know. At the same time, it is ignoring the basic health problems in New Zealand. The fact is that people cannot get elective surgery. The fact is that patients in North Shore Hospital, in my electorate, are sitting on trolleys.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) Link to this

I am very pleased to follow that member. He is intelligent, he believed what he was saying, but in this instance he was totally wrong. We do need some facts on this particular situation. New Zealand First supports the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It is long overdue, and we, unlike the National Party, support all practical steps being taken to improve the drinking-water standards in the cities, where our National members mainly live, and in the country towns.

The Health Committee worked hard on this bill, and we have to acknowledge the patience and the significant input from the select committee officials, and the input from the Local Government New Zealand representatives. We know that quite a number of improvements have been made to the bill as a result of their input. And, of course, we must acknowledge the input here of New Zealand First and the Greens as well. We know that most drinking water in New Zealand is supplied by local councils with quality standards currently set by a voluntary compliance regime—voluntary, not compulsory. This has delivered good water to the city where Mr David Bennett lives, but in the small communities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer, water standards are variable—good in the winter, perhaps not so good in the summer, and councils are less likely to be involved. Small communities with populations of 10,000 or fewer really do not have the same quality of water that we have in the towns and cities, and they may have higher costs and some administrative work to actually comply with this legislation.

We have to recognise that these smaller and more isolated water systems will create some challenges for communities where the council is not involved. We must remember too that these communities have access to their own resources and also to the funding and the technical assistance funding that has been made available by the Government. So it will be absolutely essential that the relevant authorities work through the details of the funding and technical assistance available, and that the level of funding is reviewed to ensure it is adequate for the implementation of this bill for small suppliers.

I must say that it would be extremely remiss of a Government not to ensure that it had a comprehensive risk management strategy in place to ensure that people and communities have clean drinking-water available at all times. We would expect that to be done, and we would blame the Government if it were not. Clean drinking-water is a basic requirement for any First World country—and we like to think of ourselves as a First World country. The strategy in this bill is to have a drinking-water standard, to set out the duties of drinking-water suppliers, and to have a register of community drinking-water suppliers—and it is a sound strategy. We do not need a voluntary regime any more. We need to have a regulatory regime to promote the quality and safety of drinking water, rather than relying totally on the voluntary mechanisms that have regulated the drinking-water sector in the past. Other developed nations have this sort of framework in place, and it is time for New Zealand to move in this direction.

Compared with international experience, we know that New Zealanders do not value good-quality drinking-water. The reality is that we do not even think about it; we just expect it to be there when we turn on the tap, as a normal part of life. We know that we have a looming diabetes and obesity problem, and it is really essential that parents and relevant agencies can promote water as a viable alternative to fizzy drinks and any other types of drinks that our children are consuming.

In some parts of New Zealand, there have been drinking-water system failures that have caused relatively minor illnesses. Fortunately, none at this time has resulted in death, but I would imagine that the people affected did not believe that the illness was minor when they got sick. The example that first springs to mind is the very recent occurrence at the Cardrona ski field.

Threats from new pathogens, and a slowly changing attitude by all Kiwis to the duty of care from public providers, mean that higher standards will be demanded from the institutions that regulate and deliver drinking water to us. Over the summer months, I, like most other MPs, have received complaints from people about the smell and the taste of the water they are receiving. Of course, we must include in this the many organisations that deliver drinking water to those of us in rural areas who are dependent on rainwater that we get only from tanks. We have to buy water from suppliers over the summer months, and we do notice a significant difference in the taste of it.

Like most parties, we had some concerns about the costs that could be expected to follow on as a result of this legislation, and we would like to see this level of funding reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate. Risks are always associated with providing essential Government financial assistance, because we know that this financial assistance has to manage a whole range of risks that, in themselves, can be a challenge. The very last thing we want to see is that larger suppliers complete their funding applications quickly. We have to realise that they usually have readily available all of the clerical support and expertise needed, and that they receive the funding. That can leave insufficient funds for smaller suppliers that still have to meet the same requirements as the larger ones, and that in many cases will need a longer time to prepare their applications because of a lack of clerical expertise and the resources to make the necessary changes to their plans to apply for the grants, and, of course, to get their water and their water treatment plants to a standard that meets the changed requirements.

We have to realise that it is always possible that the funding assistance could have been used for water schemes that would have happened anyway, or for any necessary routine maintenance that should have happened many months ago—in some cases, years ago. I saw some photos of plant that had not been well-maintained, and, although it may not have placed public health at risk, it certainly made one wonder about the hydrated iron oxide, or the iron oxide hydroxide content, commonly known as rust—for the information of Mr David Bennett—that people are unknowingly being exposed to.

We have to ask whether these suppliers will actually be applying for the financial assistance programme, and of course we have to say that they will be. So we can see some challenges ahead for this particular programme, but we are still very pleased to support it.

We are pleased to see, too, that technical assistance will be available to all suppliers. Technical expertise and assistance is essential for the success of this legislation. Of course we need sufficiently trained people to enable this technical assistance to be available when it is requested.

Just in wrapping up, I would like to inform the National Party that according to the Ball report the occurrence of water-borne disease in New Zealand has been demonstrated by quite a number of studies. I quote: “Based on current available data two separate estimates of the burden of ” disease are “18,000 and 34,000 cases per annum.” That is significant. Preliminary results from work in progress suggest that those are underestimates, and that is very, very bad for us.

So we in New Zealand First support this legislation. We are looking forward to working and seeing this legislation come into force, because we know that clean, wholesome drinking-water is absolutely essential for New Zealanders.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, which we will be voting for with great pleasure. This was a very interesting bill, and it was considered by the Health Committee at great length. The committee members have given this bill exhaustive consideration, and we have made very, very substantial amendments to it.

One thing that all submitters agreed on—in fact, I cannot recall any submitters saying anything to the contrary—was that water is too important to be left to a voluntary standard, as the National Party is advocating. Everybody agreed that this is important—that there needs to be a mandatory standard for water and that we cannot simply leave it up to the free market.

We have had a number of debates around the extent to which we have a problem with our water in New Zealand. It is true, as some have said, that to date there have not been significant problems in respect of people becoming ill from water in New Zealand, and thank heaven for that. But I would point out that just a few weeks ago Canterbury’s top health watchdog was warning of the potentially huge health effects that may occur if the Central Plains Water scheme—a huge $350 million irrigation scheme—went ahead. He said this could result in an explosion—[Interruption]—well, he is the top health watchdog—in the incidence of crippling and potentially fatal water-borne diseases, such as campylobacter and cryptosporidium. Canterbury’s medical officer of health, Dr Alistair Humphrey, who is a credible person, said these concerns had not been given the attention they needed.

Wally Clark, a professor from the University of Canterbury, said that water was a big concern, especially where dairying was concerned, and that campylobacter and cryptosporidium, previously little-known diseases, had become commonplace in Canterbury with the growth of dairying. These diseases were really bad and were increasing, he said, and he added that we needed to look at their incidence. He said that South Canterbury had the highest rates of campylobacter in the world, and that there were issues relating to the potential degradation of aquifers serving residents in Christchurch. He pointed out that if we are going to see an expansion of dairying in New Zealand, as we inevitably are, then issues around water supply may very well become more commonplace.

I agree with a previous speaker from National that if we are concerned with campylobacter in our water and are correctly moving to try to do something about it, then we should be even more concerned about campylobacter in chicken, because the overwhelming cause of campylobacter in New Zealand is chicken, and we know that that is mostly to do with the way chickens are raised in the slaughterhouses. So why are we not making an equal effort to clean up the slaughterhouses and the sheds in which chickens are raised? However, I will not get distracted by that issue except to make that comment.

It is also true, however—and National has already pointed this out—that when the original submitters came to the Health Committee the majority of local government was opposed to the bill, and it was worried about the effect of the costs on rates. Local Government New Zealand came to us with very alarming estimates of the cost that this legislation might result in for ratepayers, and it was worried that the cost could virtually bankrupt some of the smaller authorities in New Zealand.

The Health Committee listened to the concerns of Local Government New Zealand and bent over backwards. I can think of no other bill that has come before Parliament where there has been so much genuine consultation—in this instance, with Local Government New Zealand. We authorised Andrew Forsyth and his team—the officials working on the bill—to meet with local government. Those officials went to local government all around New Zealand, they listened to its concerns, and there was a genuine dialogue. Local Government New Zealand expressed a view on the particular issues that it was concerned about, and we sought to address every single issue that it raised. We bent over backwards. I think this would possibly be the most genuine case of consultation and negotiation over legislation that has occurred in a very long time.

As a result of the extensive consultations that we undertook, we have made a whole series of important changes to this bill. I notice that the National member Tony Ryall, whom Dr Jonathan Coleman referred to as Dr Tony Ryall—but he is, in fact, Tony Ryall—said that National had brought about some changes to this bill. I can assure anyone who may be listening that if we try to see where the changes came from, we will find that they certainly came from the committee as a whole, but in particular from New Zealand First and the Green Party, because we had the votes and because both Barbara Stewart and myself expressed huge concern about this issue. We were not prepared to go ahead with legislation that would impose Draconian, onerous, and unnecessary costs on local government, so we insisted that our officials make changes, and, as a result, they did so. It was an example of MMP in action and of MMP parties requiring much greater consultation and negotiation. This resulted in more amendments and changes to the bill than would otherwise have been made.

I actually believe that most of Local Government New Zealand is appreciative of the work we did and agrees with this bill. I suspect National members do too, but they want to have a point of difference to campaign on, so they are opposing it. But I think in their heart of hearts they agree that we need mandatory water standards and that this bill actually addresses the major concerns that were presented to us by Local Government New Zealand.

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 generally allowed suppliers serving fewer people to be given much more time to comply. We have amended the time lines so that the suppliers can align themselves with the time lines of the Local Government Act. That was in response to a concern that many people expressed, which was that if there were going to be a significant upgrade, suppliers would have to include that in their long-term local government plans.

We have defined the term “all practicable steps”, which councils must take to implement the standards, to include affordability. That was a specific request made by Local Government New Zealand that we have agreed to. We have effectively taken on board virtually all those concerns of Local Government New Zealand, including staggering time frames until 2012 and until legal duties are applied.

There is one other little thing I would like to comment on. Under the bill, the Minister will in future be able to amend or revoke drinking-water standards. We received a submission expressing a legitimate concern that this provision could somehow be used by a subsequent Minister to bring in mandatory water fluoridation effectively by the backdoor and without local consultation. So we made a further amendment stipulating that this provision will not enable mandatory water fluoridation to be introduced into New Zealand. We have also required the Minister to undergo a 3-year consultation period before amending a drinking-water standard, and we have made a further amendment stipulating that legal duties under the new standards will arise only 2 years after the standards have been passed.

So I think members will see from some of those provisions—and there are other provisions, as well—that we have very extensively amended this bill. We took into account all the concerns of Local Government New Zealand. We extensively consulted with it, and I believe we have come up with a bill that meets the need to have mandatory drinking-water standards and does so in a way that will not impose onerous costs on local government.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill is encapsulated in one simple sentence—the right to clean, safe water is a fundamental human right. Standards are required and need to be enforced, as there are numerous sources of threats to clean drinking-water. So we in the Māori Party have been happy to put forward our support for the bill as a party that stands up for the fundamental human rights of people. One would have thought that this would be an aspiration that all parties in this House would stand up for, but, of course, it is now part of the international record of shame that our current Government will in New York on 13 September—that is, tomorrow—put forward its opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a declaration that addresses both individual and collective rights, cultural rights and identity, and rights to education, health, employment, language, and others. It is a declaration that outlaws discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them. It ensures their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic, social, and cultural development. But no, it is not a declaration that this Government is prepared to support.

For Māori, water rights have a particular value. Every iwi and hapū has a river or a lake, so every iwi and hapū has been concerned about the global commercial interests that are being pushed through Governments, with multinational companies looking to buy water rights. Ko te tikanga, kia noho tonu mā te iwi ā-rohe te whakahaere mō ōna ake mana moana. Each tribal area should be responsible for its own territorial waters.

So we look at the strategy underpinning the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill to see how tangata whenua are engaged and involved in the improvements in risk management in respect of drinking water. We are interested that the bulk of the 47 submissions received were from local authorities and water suppliers, who, of course, have a vested interest in the quality of drinking water. What we know is that there are a host of threats to safe, clean drinking water in Aotearoa. There is, for example, agricultural runoff; horticultural sprays; pest eradication spray programmes; industry, both intentional and unintentional; stormwater mixing with drinking water due to infrastructure problems and flooding; lead water pipes; and possums and birds contaminating roof water and so on.

Some or all of these issues are pretty much a constant feature of daily life, as reported in the nation’s media. Any differences in water-supply quality tend to be due to where Māori choose to live. In other words, as has already been highlighted, in some of our rural areas where there are high Māori populations, there are also some of the highest rates of E. coli and reported drinking - water - borne diseases. There are some big issues that need further analysis around the purity of the water supply to our marae. We have tended to overlook the damage of runoff from the roof and the quality of the water from springs, and the question is: how careful are we?

Hapū and iwi, as kaitiaki of water, would suggest that the management of water should be jointly managed with local authorities. We notice that the select committee gave emphasis to its extensive consultation with Local Government New Zealand, and we in the Māori Party can only wonder whether there was extensive consultation with whānau, hapū, and iwi to discuss the new drinking-water standards. Although the Health Committee concluded that water supply has historically been the responsibility of local government, we can only ask too what priority the select committee has afforded to those who persevere and embrace the spiritual and cultural guardianship of Te Ao Mārama.

Our whakapapa responsibilities of kaitiakitanga require us to exercise responsibility in a way that measures the wealth and well-being of resources such as water, and I want to talk about the association between wealth and water. Any analysis of the economic, environmental, and social condition of Māori must include the sustainability and quality of the water supplies within our communities. Wealth is as much about living well as a whānau, hapū, and iwi as it is about the ecological capacity of our planet. That is where the welfare of Māori is absolutely connected to the public health risk-management plans that this bill creates as a duty and an obligation on suppliers.

We do, however, agree with the concerns put forward in the minority view of our friends in the National Party regarding the impact of the compliance costs from this bill on local government and water rates. It has greatly concerned us as a party that an intractable political and corporate culture is approaching the economics of environment protection as another indicator of GDP. We would be extremely concerned to see the good governance responsibilities involved in managing public health risks being translated into further downstream costs for ratepayers. We are, of course, alarmed at the pollution of the ecosystem, and the devastation of disease vectors that have increased the reservoir of potential water-borne human pathogens carried by animals—in other words, the harmful impact of contaminated drinking-water, whether done intentionally or recklessly. So on that one count alone, we will continue to support this bill, so that Māori can anticipate a future of living in good health and in reasonable prosperity. But we are also mindful that low-income communities, in particular, may be more vulnerable to water contamination if they are already lacking sufficient nourishment to fight off the harm.

Once again it comes back to rights—the right of New Zealanders to benefit from living in a clean, safe, and healthy environment, and the right of New Zealanders to prosper from the protection, restoration, and enhancement of mauri, the life force, within our natural environments.

Finally, despite the shameful performance that this current Government has demonstrated concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I am aware that on 22 March, World Water Day, a number of agencies internationally called for a United Nations convention on the right to water. We in the Māori Party, respecting water as a taonga, are interested in learning the position of the current Government toward such an international convention.

We absolutely endorse the provision of safe, affordable water for drinking and sanitation as a basic human right. We do not believe that the privatisation and trading of water rights sits alongside indigenous rights or human rights. Our commitment to supporting the bill at this, its second, reading is to do so in the interests of protecting and preserving a stable and secure environment for future generations. Such a goal reflects our party’s belief in genuine progress, true wealth, and kaitiakitanga. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) Link to this

I stand on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. A safe drinking-water supply is about as basic a human need as you can get, and although currently 71 percent of the New Zealand population is served by a water supply that complies with some standards, the rest are served by a water supply that is either non-compliant or not known to be compliant. The other 29 percent of the population, in areas where suppliers are unable to substantiate the quality of the water they supply, are largely living in small, rural communities.

To date we have been served by a voluntary regulatory scheme, but that leaves nearly one-third of New Zealanders not covered by that scheme. How many New Zealanders who are reliant on uncertain water supplies, I wonder, does it take before we will support the type of change that we are looking at in the House this afternoon? The phase-in approach to a multifaceted strategy for improving risk management in regard to our drinking water is, I believe, the way that we can spread the cost, but it concerns me that we should be weighing up water quality in mere monetary terms. Hearing some people suggest that we cannot afford it worries United Future. It is of concern that the burgeoning role of local government means that it baulks at the costs associated with drinking water, and maybe that is a discussion for another day. United Future believes that we cannot afford not to plan for a future that includes clear drinking-water standards.

Several years ago I was fortunate enough to attend an international conference in Viet Nam on water. I left with two clear impressions. My first impression was that we should be very grateful for what we have. Most of the countries at that particular conference talked about sharing water supplies with other countries literally upstream, with different priorities and different standards. Often there were great tensions around the sharing of very, very scarce water supplies. The second impression I came out of the conference with was that we should not take for granted this very basic resource, which was described by many at the conference as the new gold and new oil. In fact, international experts at that conference talked of future wars being waged over water, not oil, and they said that a sustainable, healthy water supply needs to be deliberately planned for.

I congratulate the Health Committee, which United Future does not enjoy representation on, on the sensible changes that I see it has made and on the collaborative way it has worked. We are very happy to support the second reading of this bill.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

I am very, very pleased to stand in support of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in this second reading in the House, and what an extraordinary debate we have had so far. It is very telling that with nearly every other party in the House supporting this bill, National members have decided they want to play politics with it. They want to be able to go around next year saying that Labour has put up the cost of people’s rates, and what they are forgetting is that we are actually dealing with the public health of some of our poorest communities and some of our poorest New Zealanders. I would like to hear the next National speaker tell the House what dollar value National members would place on the public health of these poor New Zealanders before those members would suddenly be willing to support this bill

The Government wants to ensure that all New Zealanders on community water supplies have access to safe drinking-water, just as people in urban centres in New Zealand enjoy already access to safe drinking-water. Compared with other OECD countries, we do have relatively high rates of preventable illness caused, in part, by water-borne germs.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

National opposes the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the excellent contributions from Tony Ryall and Dr Jonathan Coleman. We think the intentions of this bill are commendable and laudable. We also agree that water is essential for life and that New Zealanders should have access to good, safe water. But this bill is not the mechanism to achieve that. This bill is costly to ratepayers, it is impractical, and the issue of affordability has not been factored into it. The small and rural ratepayers will be the ones who suffer. They will bear the brunt of this bill. Basically, the bill is what Dr Jonathan Coleman said it is—a legislative sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is micromanagement to the nth degree.

The vast majority of water suppliers we heard from in the select committee give high-quality water to their communities. They undertake self-improvement and they monitor. This is voluntary—they are not forced to do anything—and they are doing it very, very well. Only a small number of water suppliers, about 16 percent, have a problem and need to clean up their act. We also agree that these groups should absolutely be providing safe water, and all practical steps should be taken to improve drinking water. We also absolutely agree that if there is a clear link between drinking water and infection, urgent and firm action should be taken. But we think this bill is overkill.

The Health Committee received a submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. It detailed 23 outbreaks of water-borne infection that had occurred in the last 30 years, and it gave us quite a lot of detail. I will go over the four examples that have occurred in the last decade—the rest had occurred prior to that.

The first case in the last 10 years occurred in a rural school in Hawke’s Bay in 2001. The problem was that faeces from cattle had got into the source water. The reason there was an infection was that the ultraviolet treatment machine was malfunctioning. I do not think this bill would have somehow fixed up the ultraviolet treatment machine. The second example occurred in Banks Peninsula in 2004. The problem there was that an effluent pipe in a septic tank had broken, and it discharged into a spring-fed drinking-water supply. Again, I do not think this bill would have fixed the septic tank or the effluent pipe. The third example occurred in a Nelson camp in 2004. In actual fact, when one reads through the information, one finds that there was no proven link. So that one goes.

The last case that happened in the last decade was at the Cardrona ski field in 2006, and I agree that this case was a valid, legitimate issue. There was a problem with effluent overflow that went into a stream. The drinking-water supply was not registered, the treatment comprised filtration and ultraviolet treatment, the cartridge did not comply with the requirements of the drinking-water standards for New Zealand, and the efficacy of the ultraviolet treatment was not known.

That 2006 case is a fair enough example, and only the other three examples occurred the last decade; everything else happened 20 years before that. I say to members that the world has moved on in the last decade. We now live in a world where there are standards of accountability, responsibility, duty of care, and informed consent. We can see that the incidents of water-borne outbreaks have been very rare in the last 10 years, and certainly, what happened prior to that is all very historical knowledge.

The cost of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill is massive. We have heard the Government figures. It gave wide-ranging figures—from $50 million to $275 million. Local Government New Zealand, which opposed the bill—and still opposes it—estimated that the cost would go right up to $800 million. That is a massive amount of money. Who will take the brunt of that sort of cost? It will be the ratepayers, and it will be the rural communities in particular. We have little rural communities that are paying massive amounts of money. Mackenzie District Council paid $3 million over its plan, the Ashburton District Council paid $10 million, and the Clutha District Council paid $20 million. This is big money. Really, this bill is a sledgehammer. It will not fix up pipes that get broken. It will not fix up a problem that is not a problem to begin with.

National supports voluntary compliance and the education of communities, not this legislative approach that will not solve the problem. The Opposition thinks this bill is costly to ratepayers, impractical, and unaffordable. It is legislative overkill to the nth degree, and we oppose it.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I agree with Jill Pettis, who has just interjected that there was no passion in the previous speech by Jackie Blue. I do not think that Dr Blue, in her heart of hearts, really believes the speech notes she was given. I would have assumed that, as a medical doctor, her driving passion would be public health. I also find it ironic that there is another medical doctor in the Chamber, from Northcote, whom I would have thought would also be driven by the need for public health.

You know, those members are from the party that, if it had the opportunity—just watch this space—would sell off water in this country and make it a private good, not a public good. National would be in so fast with every French, Japanese, or American private water company that members would not believe it. Did members think National members would sit here for 9 years, 10 years, or 15 years in Opposition as some sort of version of “Labour-lite”, saying that they are lovely and wonderful and that they really care? Do members honestly think that National’s policy thinktanks are not looking at the tradable commodity of water? Members should look at what National did in respect of electricity. Do members honestly think that in the next cut, should we ever have the misfortune of having a National-led Government, water will not come up for contention? National members are not shaking their heads; they are actually smiling with embarrassment because they know they have had exactly those kinds of conversations.

National says that it is for private enterprise. If it was given half a chance it would roll back the barriers even further and we would not be having this kind of public health debate. In a future Parliament we would literally be having a debate about who exactly should own and run the water supply in this country.

I compliment the Minister Pete Hodgson and the Government on this bill. It is a needed bill. I compliment the Health Committee on the work it did. Hamilton has an excellent water supply. I take my hat off to the Hamilton City Council. It does a wonderful job.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this

I rise to join my colleagues in opposing the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, and it seems really important that I start by expressing some concern about the drinking water in the debating chamber. Such was the invective of the member opposite, Martin Gallagher, that I think the drinking water may well have been endangered. I wonder whether it needs to be changed, after listening to that speech from the other side.

I speak on this bill, in the knowledge that in my 2 years in Parliament few other bills have caused such an outcry from the rural people and the territorial local authorities of my electorate—Aoraki. I am worried about the misrepresentations made in the House today. First of all, the whole of the Health Committee worked very, very hard to improve this bill—not only advisers but all parties worked very hard. It is disingenuous of an earlier speaker to suggest that the improvement was all down to New Zealand First and the Green Party. In fact, considerable work was done by all parties.

I want to help out the member opposite, who said he was not as learned as Dr Jackie Blue, by explaining what this magazine is. It is the Food Safety Authority magazine, Food Focus, and it states: “Campylobacterosis is an important food-borne disease in New Zealand and has the highest level of notifications. There are a lot of cases of this particular problem, but most of them are food-borne cases.” Let me begin with a reference to a statement made by the Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, during the first reading of this bill: “Water can never be made completely safe.” Well, that is a good start. But the Minister prefaced that statement with the word “Although”, and then set about explaining just how much money he wants the ratepayers of New Zealanders to pay to reduce the potential risk to public health.

This is where I need to make a very strong point. The National Party does not oppose clean, safe drinking-water for the people of New Zealand, wherever they may live. This party does not oppose that, but we believe that, in many respects, this bill is set up to fail. The cost is so high that it simply will not happen. We know this because we had significant representations made to the select committee. When the Minister referred the bill to the Health Committee he said it must be reported back to the House by December 2006. There are a number of reasons why that did not happen. Partly, it was because of the concerted effort of all parties in the select committee process. There were 47 submissions, and we heard 26 of them. Most came from local authorities and water suppliers, which is no surprise. But do not be mistaken by the summary of support numbers. It is really hard for anybody in New Zealand to say that he or she is opposed to improved drinking-water—it is unlikely one would find anyone who would say that. But there are people who oppose this bill and the nature of it, because they believe it represents significant financial risk.

Back in January of this year the Ministry of Health put out a press release entitled: “Steady improvement in the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water.”—interesting, considering it came up during the select committee process. It stated: “The quality of New Zealand’s drinking-water is improving steadily, according to the Annual Review of Drinking-Water Quality in New Zealand 2005, which provides the most up to date information on the quality of our tap water.” We know there have been improving numbers of registered water supplies. We know that drinking-water supplies have been improving, prior to this bill. Dr Paul Prendergast, the Ministry of Health’s principal public health engineer said that the figures mentioned in the review did not “necessarily mean that 24 percent of New Zealanders received unsafe drinking-water in 2005, it simply means water suppliers did not demonstrate that the water was safe.” That is an important point to make.

There were significant flaws in the development of the rationale for this bill; the most important being the Government’s belief that there will be significant improvement in gastrointestinal infection rates, as a result of the bill. But the ministry was unable to demonstrate clear, unequivocal links between a lot of these gastrointestinal problems and drinking-water supplies.

I acknowledge there have been significant improvements to this bill, but I just want to spend a small time on considering some of the objections to the bill. Both Federated Farmers and Rural Women surveyed their members. The concerns of Federated Farmers mirrored the concerns of many other submitters; 31 percent of their members responded to the survey, which is quite a bit higher than it would usually get. In answer to the question: “Do you support the introduction of the drinking-water standards as compulsory compliance standards?”, there were some interesting responses. Some people talked about being in an area where their water was graded E, but there had not been outbreaks of disease. Some people thought the standards were overkill. Some said it seems an expensive way of over-regulating for schemes that are perfectly safe and have little risk of becoming dangerous. Some said the voluntary standards work; there is minimal ill health related to drinking-water standards.

They were also asked: “Do you think the bill should proceed, despite the financial costs outweighing the benefits?”. Some said in response that if they cannot prove the benefits outweigh the costs, then forget it. They said: “We live here by choice”—in rural areas—“and accept that risks apply.” There was a feeling that the costs would add to the overburden on ratepayers. They said: “Costs will increase our rate bills.” I think generally the people in rural areas have said, yes they want safe drinking-water but they want it in an affordable manner. I really want to reiterate that that is National’s point.

When the National Party decided to oppose the bill, it did so knowing that after all of the work that Local Government New Zealand undertook during the select committee process it had retained principled opposition to this bill. Local Government New Zealand worked with us in the select committee and achieved significant improvements to the bill. Those improvements have been covered by some of National’s previous speakers, so I will not go into those again. The fact that Local Government New Zealand has principled opposition to the bill tells me that the costs it has estimated for its long-term council community plan expenditure, both operating expenditure and capital expenditure, are too high.

I will touch briefly on the per capita costs for capital expenditure for long-term council community plans that will hit some councils very hard. Two of these councils—Queenstown and South Taranaki—have a figure exceeding $4,000 per capita. Five councils—Marlborough, Rangitikei, Thames Coromandel, Timaru, and Whangarei—have per capita expenditure of more than $2,000. That is just one example of what these particular councils and what Local Government New Zealand are concerned about, and one of the reasons why Local Government New Zealand retains its principled opposition.

I will close there, because the rest of the debate will give us plenty of opportunity to further canvass during the Committee stage of this bill.