Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

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

I wonder whether the Minister would care to take a call and advise the Committee of the likely cost to water suppliers of complying with this legislation as introduced, and now as amended. The reason why we ask that question is that there has been huge variability in the advice from officials from the ministry and from Local Government New Zealand about the likely costs associated here.

The Health Committee heard at one stage that the cost of the bill could be between $50 million and $250 million, based on standards and processes that existed some years before the bill was introduced. We subsequently heard, as I am sure Mrs Goodhew will confirm, that $300 million was the estimate provided by officials. Local Government New Zealand then came before the select committee and advised that it thought the cost for local governments and water suppliers to comply with the legislation would be more in the vicinity of $800 million. Understanding the costs on local government goes to the heart of the select committee’s deliberations.

As the Minister will be aware, there was an incredible amount of ongoing discussion with the representatives of local government about what costs they would have to face as the predominant suppliers affected by this legislation. At the end of the committee hearing, Local Government New Zealand advised it was still in opposition to the bill because of the costs. Although Local Government New Zealand welcomed the changes to the bill, it did not believe that they mitigated the concerns it had about the burdens that would be put on ratepayers and consumers of water who pay through charges. We would like to know from the Government what the current expectation is of the costs to local governments and water suppliers from what is being proposed in this legislation, because that goes to the heart of the concerns that were expressed by communities. Communities are concerned about the costs they will have to carry as a result of this legislation.

I would also like the Minister to provide the Committee with more information about what impact the changes the select committee proposed will have on the compliance costs of various users. We know that very small drinking-water suppliers will now face some different rules from what was originally proposed in the legislation. Different sized water schemes face different obligations. But can the Minister actually provide us with the detail as to the nature of those costs, because those costs have moved so much. In the bill as introduced, the regulatory compliance statement talked about $50 million to $250 million, as I recall. The select committee then heard from officials that it was more up to $300 million.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) Link to this

Mr Tony Ryall has raised the concern that goes to the heart of the matter as regards this bill—that is, the costs imposed on local government. The amounts we have heard at the Health Committee have just grown exponentially as the bill has gone further and further through the select committee process. When we started off, the estimate was for a couple of hundred million dollars, and then some officials came back from a conference and said that it looked as if the cost would be $375 million. Local Government New Zealand came before the select committee and said the cost would be $800 million. When we tallied up the imposition on local government, it turned out that it would cost $2.3 billion over 10 years to implement these changes—changes to a law that quite frankly seemed to be working pretty well.

The reality is that we do not have these terrible water-borne epidemics in New Zealand. We have not really heard enough about the problem to which this bill is meant to be the solution. It seems to be a solution without a problem. We heard some sort of vague evidence about sewage having been leaked into Lake Wakatipu about 20 years ago, but how that related to drinking water was never quite established. We heard some vague stuff about there having been an outbreak of typhoid in Wisconsin and that there had been some problems in the Soviet Union. There was a further story about some problems with non-compliant water in Milwaukee. But we did not really hear enough about the situation in New Zealand. We heard a lot of confusing evidence about campylobacter, but then we pointed out that actually campylobacter is a disease found primarily in chickens, and it is a disease of poor food-handling. So we came back to the problem that this bill was a sledgehammer solution to crack a walnut.

Who will pay, again? It will be the poor old ratepayers and the taxpayers. It will be local government paying $2.3 billion over 10 years. I think that it is a sad indictment on the Minister—and I really hope he will get up and take a call at the end of my speech—that with all the problems we have in the health-care arena in New Zealand, the Government thinks that its highest priority is pushing through this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We do not have elective surgery in this country. We do not have enough beds in our hospitals. People cannot get the services they need in emergency departments. But, still, this Minister’s priority is to look at the drinking water.

I ask the Minister how many people died over the past year from an outbreak of contaminated water in New Zealand. Was it 100? Was it 50? No, it was zero. But how many people died in our accident and emergency departments because they could not get access to the care they wanted? I would not like to quote the figure, but there has been enough of the issue in the papers for quite some time to show that that is where this Government’s priorities should lie. But of course when it comes to health we have a Government whose concern is to go up to North Shore Hospital and unveil a statue that is meant to shed light in places where despair has set in. The best place for that statue may well be the Labour caucus room. But this Government, rather than turning around and walking away from the site of that statue and going into the North Shore Hospital emergency department—where the real problems in the health system come to the fore—is focusing on the issue of drinking water. I would like the Minister to get up and tell us where the problem with our drinking water actually lies in this country because, frankly, at the Health Committee we were struggling to find a problem of a magnitude that required this level of response.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) Link to this

If that last speech was quality debate, then we are easy on this side of the Chamber. We are really happy if that speech was quality debate. Not one person on the other side of the Chamber has got up yet and said that clean water matters for a health system and that clean water is a basis of a society. No one has got up and said that, but we have heard Dr Jonathan Coleman, the smoking doctor from Auckland, get up and say we do not have a problem. Well, in Auckland we do not.

In Auckland there is clean water. The providers of clean water in Auckland have come to me, into my office, and said: “Can you please pass this bill.” I asked why, because they already meet the standards. They said they want legislative backing to ensure that they never lower their standards from where they are now. They said they want that standard in legislation. They want to make sure they can go to their stakeholders and say: “This water is clean, because we’ve made it clean and because we must make it clean.” They travelled from Auckland to Wellington to say that.

Where does Dr Jonathan Coleman, the smoking doctor, live? He lives in Auckland. Where does the next National speaker, Dr Jackie Blue, come from—the one who would have got up if I had not taken the call? She comes from Auckland. Where does Mr Tony Ryall come from? He comes from Tauranga, and Tauranga meets the standards. But I will tell the Committee a couple of places that do not. The Catlins do not meet the standards, and the Cardrona ski field does not meet the standards.

I will tell the Committee what happened at the Cardrona ski field. Some sewage got caught up in some fresh water-supply. They had the water going out, sitting above the mountain, and the water for going in, below. As a result, there was an outbreak of poisoning. How do we know that? We know because a number of people came to the attention of a public health doctor on the ski field. We would not have known otherwise. That is a really important thing about water—most water-borne disease is not diagnosed. And it is not OK to require the proof of the need for clean water. Dirty water—water that contains a lot of coliforms; water that contains a lot of material that should not be in clean water—is just not OK in 2007.

But there is a problem, and that is that water supplies are often managed on behalf of very small populations. It is not fair for those very small populations to have to bear the burden of a very substantial infrastructure deficit. It is not fair, and it is particularly not fair when sometimes those water supplies have to be made bigger to cope with, perhaps, a summer rush of tourism. That is not fair. So this good Labour Government said: “We can help.” We went to Local Government New Zealand and said we could help meet the costs and would do so according to a formula. I think the money we said we would put in was 153 million bucks. I am not sure, but it is of that ilk. That money is there, because this Government invests in health, instead of rushing to give tax cuts everywhere. That is the difference.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this

I take great pleasure in standing to talk on Part 1 and to respond to the Minister’s comments. I am not sure why he denies all the information that submitters gave us at the Health Committee. That information is based on the financial risk they believe their organisations and ratepayers will be faced with. I am well aware the Government has said it will give Local Government New Zealand $150 million to help out with meeting the costs of implementing this bill. However, the chairperson of Local Government New Zealand said in a press release that he believed the bill would cost $800 million. So $150 million will not go very far.

We heard a lot of concerns during the select committee process about that $150 million, and about how the process to get one’s hands on it was potentially bureaucratic—was potentially full of hoops to be jumped through. In fact, Local Government New Zealand was terribly concerned about who would actually qualify. We heard concerns expressed by various members of the select committee, and the Māori Party representative, Tariana Turia, was particularly concerned about smaller, poorer communities around New Zealand that may have their ability to apply for that money affected by some wealthier residents in those local areas. That certainly was of concern to people in those parts of New Zealand.

I want to go back to something I reiterated in the second reading of this bill: the National Party completely supports the premise that drinking water should be safe and should be clean. But at the same time the National Party realises there is a cost to be met in achieving that across New Zealand, and believes that the cost should be representative of the gain that is made.

I will spend a moment talking about the Balmoral No. 1 Rural Water Supply Scheme committee that submitted to the bill. The conclusion in its submission was that its water supply was already safe. It believes that its water supply is safe. We know that 24 percent of the water supplies around the country have not been demonstrated to be safe, but that is simply because they have not actually had to be demonstrated to be safe rather than to be proven to be unsafe. The submission from the Balmoral No. 1 Rural Water Supply Scheme committee also stated: “Current drinking water standards are delivering safe water to us now. The cost of meeting the new standards is too great for small rural communities. They are already struggling.” And the Clutha District Council, which the Minister has already mentioned, stated: “Principles underlying the reason for the legislation are seriously flawed and based on poor science. The cost burden of complying for small urban and rural communities is just too high.”

Of course, we know that Local Government New Zealand has taken an unusual stance on this bill, and has maintained that it has principled opposition to the bill. Members can imagine whether Local Government New Zealand was thinking that that would reflect on its ratepayers—whether its members thought they would have to stand up at meet-the-candidates nights and say they did not favour people having safe, clean drinking-water, and say that to all the people they hoped would elect them. Well, that is not what they are saying. They are the protectors of the ratepayer’s purse. They are saying they simply do not believe they can afford this legislation, they are asking whether another way can be found, and they are telling us they have principled opposition to this bill.

As National members have already said in the second reading debate of this bill, there was significant interaction between the select committee and Local Government New Zealand. I believe that to the latter’s credit, and to the credit of the committee, significant gains and significant improvements were made in this particular bill as a result of that interaction. But Local Government New Zealand was still very concerned about the lack of cost-benefit analysis. It was very concerned that there was not a robust link between drinking water and the gastrointestinal diseases that are recorded in New Zealand. It also talked to us of its concerns about the impact on its long-term council community plans, and we have heard quoted the costs for the capital expenditure and operational expenditure figures for those plans, and the costs for those two district councils—Queenstown Lakes and South Taranaki—with figures exceeding $4,000 per capita per annum.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this

In this Committee stage debate on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill one thing is crystal clear—if members will excuse the pun. The thing that is crystal clear is that if this country was unlucky enough to have a National Government in place that Government would not be promoting safe drinking-water, and it would not be putting this bill forward. It is very clear from this debate that National does not care about the health benefits of having safe drinking-water. In particular, it does not care about having safe drinking-water in rural communities, and I, personally, was quite astounded to hear that during the Health Committee’s discussion.

I am a member of the Health Committee, and it was very interesting to observe the National members on the committee arguing that if people choose to live in rural areas they should expect lesser standards for their drinking water, and perhaps lesser standards in other issues as well. I was very surprised to hear that from National members because as a Labour member of Parliament living in a rural area I know that people living and working in rural areas do not believe that themselves. They want good, safe drinking-water, and they believe they have the same rights to a healthy lifestyle as urban dwellers, and that is at the heart of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It is crystal clear that National would not be promoting such a bill should it become the Government—or would it? It is never very clear with National at the moment.

Dr Jonathan Coleman said before that during the select committee process he did not hear enough about the need for safe water. Perhaps he should have been listening to the same submitters I was listening to. More important, perhaps he should listen to one of his own colleagues, Dr Nick Smith, who said—

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

It was very interesting listening to the Minister take a call. If he thinks the National Party, for whatever reason, is taking a wrong, unethical, or amoral position, why is it—I ask the Minister, though he has gone, he has fled the Chamber; I am sorry, I should not say that—that local government has such vehement opposition to this bill? Local government members came in front of the Health Committee and their submissions were absolutely vehement. They were firmly opposed to the bill for its cost to local communities, and particularly to rural communities. Those local government members are the defenders of communities, so surely if they felt this bill was valid, was right, and was there to help communities, they would be backing it to the hilt. Even when they got into a huddle with officials—and there was lots of consultation back and forth, letters written, and meetings—they still, after all the amendments, remained principally opposed to this bill, and I think that says a lot.

Their main opposition was the cost. The bill puts far too much cost and a burden on to ratepayers, and it is the local rural communities that will carry the burden. As Jonathan Coleman said, the bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. We had these widely varying estimates of what the bill will cost. First of all the figure was $50 million, and then it ranged from $50 million up to $275 million. It was staggering; the numbers kept going up. At the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association conference in 2006 the estimate went up to $300 million. There was no stopping it in sight. Then the local government people told us in the select committee that, no, it was none of those figures; it was nearer $800 million. That is a phenomenal amount of money, and no wonder eyes were widening and everyone was being incredibly surprised by the figures that were coming in to us.

No affordability of this bill has been factored in; there has been no common sense. Nor has the effect been factored in of how the bill will affect small suppliers, who in many ways are doing a community service by helping out their neighbours with local water supplies. What will they do in the face of this huge cost compliance and bureaucratic machine coming their way? They will simply turn the tap off. Who will pay the penalty for that? It will be local rural communities. We had a number of examples of small councils that will have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars per head of their population.

Jo Goodhew made a very good comment in the second reading of the bill when she referred to Pete Hodgson’s comment in the first reading that water can never be made completely safe, but that on the other hand he wants ratepayers to foot the bill for something we cannot reduce the risk of and for something we cannot ever make completely safe. It just seems ironical.

National does not oppose clean, safe drinking-water. Water is essential to life and we believe that New Zealanders should have access to safe and clean water, but this bill is not the vehicle to give it. This bill is not going to work. Its cost to local communities will completely bog the mechanism.

There has been very little evidence that New Zealanders have had any problems with water-borne diseases. Members on the other side keep bringing up overseas examples like Milwaukee and talking about campylobacter in food. But chickens carry campylobacter; it is not often water-borne, at all. When the Institute of Environmental Science and Research did a presentation to our select committee, it was actually quite revealing. One would think that we had had typhoid and cholera epidemics galore and that hundreds of people had died, but in actual fact the examples given were over 20 or 30 years old, and for the last decade only four cases were presented to the Health Committee.

One case occurred in 2001 at a rural school in Hawke’s Bay, where there was a problem with faeces from cattle getting into the source water. Apparently the problem there was an ultraviolet machine that had not been working. The second example was in Banks Peninsula in 2004, and the problem there was an effluent pipe in a septic tank that had broken down and was discharging into a spring-fed drinking-water supply. There was a third example, at a Nelson camp in 2004, but when I read through the actual detail I saw that a link could never be proved, so that really was not an issue. I agreed with only one case, that of the Cardrona ski field in 2006, and that was a legitimate issue. There was a problem with the effluent overflow that went into a stream, and the drinking-water supply was not registered. The treatment comprised filtration and ultraviolet treatment, but the cartridge did not comply with the requirements of drinking-water standards.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this

I rise as a member of the Health Committee, which, over a fairly lengthy and careful period, dealt with the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, in order to support its passage.

The bill was introduced to deal with the risk posed to over half a million New Zealanders receiving water from community drinking-water supplies that do not meet the New Zealand drinking-water standards. It was introduced to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to safer drinking-water—the water they deserve—and because the current situation, with purely voluntary standards, had reached its limits.

There has been, on the one hand, a series of carping speeches from members on the National benches who, under Mr Ryall, have taken the unbelievable position of opposing this bill as unnecessary. On the other hand, the National Party has done another flip-flop. Dr Smith has suggested that a high percentage of our drinking water is unsafe, but Dr Coleman and Dr Blue have said that we have the best standard of drinking water in the world, and that this is a problem that does not need fixing. So it appears the National Party is both very concerned and deeply unconcerned about the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this

Thank you, Madam Chairperson—

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this

I have been listening to the debate with some interest, and I think we need to set out a few principles relating to it. Nobody wants anybody in New Zealand to drink water that will do them harm. I think that is a pretty good principle to start with. The next issue we need to address is what we actually need to do to fix up what may be wrong. What have we determined is the error? A couple of examples have been given, involving contamination at Wakatipu and Cardrona, and I will speak to those a little later. But I see here quite a comprehensive bill, of 80 or so pages, that is just about making water suitable for people to consume. The mischief really is not defined. I think our team has said quite clearly that this is over-elaborate legislation that will add significant costs to a whole range of people who are out there consuming water. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, has a somewhat agrarian background, and I say to him that this bill is a little bit like treating scrotal mange with a hammer. I think he understands that term and that the proposal in this bill is serious overkill for what is said to be a problem.

I want to pick up on a point or two made by Lesley Soper, who spoke earlier in the debate. She said she visits schools, or used to visit schools, in her area. Well, I actually visit a few schools too. I think what I will do is copy the Hansard record of her debate and send it to the likes of the Gorge Road School and the Otatara School in the electorate of Invercargill, which I visited recently. They have pleaded with me to oppose this legislation because of the costs it will impose on schools that are not in a reticulated area. The question that needs to be answered by those on the other side who are promoting the bill is what they will do for the operations grants of schools that will be impacted on by significant increases in the costs of running their schools, purely and simply as a result of this legislation. The Otatara School is in the Invercargill electorate, and it is in quite a large suburb of the Invercargill City Council area that does not have reticulated water. Every resident, every business, and every entity in that suburb of the city has to rely on rainwater or bore water. The cost that this legislation will impose on that suburb alone will be such that I think we need to circulate the record of Lesley Soper’s speech to those people as well, so that they can get an impression of how she is quite happy to overload costs on them through an overkill piece of legislation.

Let us take another part of the Invercargill electorate that Lesley Soper is so desirous of representing—that is, Stewart Island. Again, there is not a great deal of reticulation on Stewart Island. The people of Stewart Island make up a wonderful community. They actually seize the opportunity to look after themselves. One of the things that the island’s population of 380 people did was to build its own community centre. It spent $1.4 million, resulting from a lot of entrepreneurial activity, on building that community centre. One of the ways in which the people there fund the ongoing maintenance and management of this community resource is by catching the water off the roof and selling it as pure Stewart Island water. But I have just read the bill. Those people in Stewart Island will not now qualify without a whole lot of expenses, so this legislation will kill their little fund-raising scheme. Stewart Island pure water will no longer be available, without some considerable expense, to those who are managing that fund-raising experience.

Let us go back to the two illustrations that have been given where there is contamination of sewage—Lake Wakatipu and Cardrona. It is appalling that there is contamination of sewage but will this bill stop that? Surely there has been a breakdown in sewage management on the part of the people who are responsible for ensuring there is no contamination. We can pass all the legislation we like, but if we have legislation that says to keep the brown stuff away from the white stuff and it is getting mixed up, we do not need legislation to fix the problem. We need to sort out which pipe goes where and have someone on the ground who understands what is important in delivering clean drinking-water.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this

It is my pleasure to stand here today and talk to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I would just like to say a brief hello to those people who are in their cars, in the traffic, going up to the Kapiti coast, Nathan Guy’s area. These people will have left at 4 p.m. so they could beat the rush and get out of the traffic jam. They will come up to see Nathan some time.

I have had a quick look at this bill, and my understanding is that it is really about water-borne diseases and making sure that New Zealand has water that is safe for everybody to drink. Nobody in the National Party would disagree with the fact that we need healthy drinking-water in New Zealand—we do need healthy drinking-water, and we have it.

I am a mother of three young children, and we drink a huge amount of water in our house. The quality of the water is important to my family, as it is to everybody who has a family and consumes litres and litres of water a day, like my family does. We are very concerned about the quality of our water, and I must say that we have not had any problems at all with the quality of our water. My mother, who lives up in the Hawke’s Bay, has not any problems with the quality of her water. At the weekend I was on Waiheke Island, which has tank water, and there are no problems with the water up there, either. I am standing here, as a water drinker for 38 years, and I seem to be pretty healthy, as do my colleagues over here, who are also water drinkers.

We have heard Dr Jonathan Coleman talk about this legislation. He has referred to it as a sledgehammer for a walnut. It is interesting. I looked back to see who was on the Health Committee, which looked at this legislation. There was Dr Jonathan Coleman, Dr Jackie Blue, Jo Goodhew, and Tony Ryall, who were extremely high-powered to be on this Health Committee and very representative. They actually understand what water-borne diseases do to people. Of anybody, we in the National Party have the more qualified members and the depth of understanding of what happens to our communities in the health sector when we have water-borne diseases. There just are not any water-borne diseases.

During the select committee process there were many, many submissions, and from them came the fact that in the last 10 years only four water-borne diseases have been identified. None of those cases was due to the water itself; they were due to conditions around the water. As my colleague from Invercargill, Eric Roy, said, those incidents were actually about sewage and not about the water systems themselves. Will this bill stop mistakes such as those that happened in those four cases in the last 10 years? This bill does not address the problem. We have a bill here that does not address half the issues of how the problems happen.

This bill has become quite a major thing in this House at the moment. But we would like to think that the priorities of the Government are the accident and emergency department in North Shore, or the neonatal units having to fly babies to Australia—or threatening to—or, perhaps, maternity services and how one cannot get lead maternity care. What are the priorities for this Government? Are they really with clean drinking-water, or they about getting people into accident and emergency departments? Is the North Shore accident and emergency department a priority? Are the neonatal units a priority? [Interruption] The Government members say: “No, no, no—talk about the bill.”, but I am talking about real issues that many people face. I tell those people travelling up the Kapiti coast to Nathan Guy’s area that he is more than aware of these issues, as well, and more than aware of the priorities of this Government.

Many councils made submissions on this bill, and their biggest concern was the cost. The Government has said that it will put some capital expenditure into this, but at the end of the day, who will pay for this “sledgehammer for a walnut” situation? It will be the ratepayers. The ratepayers will be made to pay and pay, over and over.

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

In this debate on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill members of National have been outlining our concerns. We have been asking a number of questions about the cost. The Minister did not take a call—

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

That was a wonderful contribution by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Was it not a fascinating submission from the former Mayor of Rangitīkei? He tried to work out what was going on in his community in the face of these strange numbers he was hearing about and reading about. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research was not investigating 50 percent of them. That is the science—that is the unreliability of the data we have. Yet we now have a bill with costs ranging from $75 million up to $800 million. We do not know the size of the problem or indeed whether there is a problem.

I agree with my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Local communities should have a say in the level of risk they carry. There should be local solutions for local problems. The local community should have a say. They are having no say with this bill, which is so bureaucratic, so heavy-handed, and so micro-managing to the nth degree. They will be completely rolled by this bill. In fact, the financial cost is so considerable that it will be detrimental to the functioning of local communities.

Local Government New Zealand was vehement in its opposition to the bill, as I have said before. It was totally vehement. Local Government New Zealand is a defender of local communities and local standards. Surely, if it felt that this bill should be passed, it would have backed it. Local Government New Zealand staff huddled with the officials, and amendments were made. I will talk about some of those amendments shortly. But after all the discussions and all the toing and froing, Local Government New Zealand is still principally opposed to this bill. That says it all. And the Mayor of Rangitīkei’s submission says it all.

Our own investigations of the problem of water-borne diseases also confirm the fact that we have not had outbreaks of cholera and typhoid. We have not had deaths. In fact, the submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research showed only four cases in the last decade, and of those four cases, there is only one—that of Cardrona ski field—that I could say was probably a valid and legitimate claim.

Some amendments were made to the bill. There is a new category for rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers, with much more flexible obligations in respect of their drinking-water standards. There is a new definition called “neighbourhood drinking-water supply”, which is based on the number of people it supplies. Generally speaking, suppliers serving fewer people are given more time to comply. Time lines are staggered up to 2012 before suppliers face legal action if they do not comply. There is also a new definition called “temporary drinking-water supplier”, which applies to temporary events such as music festivals and school farm camps. This was defined so it would not capture small shearing gangs visiting a property. The time lines have been changed so that the suppliers can align themselves with the Local Government Act 2002.

There was a response to the concern, which many people expressed, that there were going to be significant upgrades and that suppliers would have to include that in their local planning. There is a new definition of “all practicable steps”, which the councils must take to implement the standards to include affordability. That has also been defined. The bureaucracy this bill creates is absolutely staggering. It is actually mind-blowing. A whole new sector is being evolved, and job creation is evolving out of this bill.

In Part 1 there is a whole section about drinking-water assessors and designated officers. There are a number of amendments that relate to these particular people and to these new jobs that have been created out of this bill and this bureaucracy. The drinking-water assessors are appointed by the Director-General of Health. They assess the performance of drinking-water suppliers, notify designated officers—which is another new job that is created—and drinking-water suppliers on any non-compliance, and provide information to the Deputy-General of Health. They assess the competence of persons to analyse samples of raw water or drinking water and to calibrate equipment, and so on and so on. There are a number of amendments about drinking-water assessors and designated officers.

The job of “designated officer” is, as I said, a new job. Designated officers have a number of functions. They have to check that the directions of the drinking-water assessors are complied with. These designated officers also have quite wide-ranging powers. With all this new bureaucracy and the proliferation of new personnel, there has to be a process to review the decisions of drinking-water assessors, and a register of drinking-water assessors, and so on. Is it any wonder that the estimates on this bill have absolutely bloomed? We have heard about them as being a moving feast. As the Health Committee heard, first it was $50 million, then it was wide ranging, up to $275 million.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) Link to this

I was not actually going to speak on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I was in the House, doing a little bit of homework, and started listening to the debate, which is a tragedy in its own self, in many respects. It came to me that I just want to share with members some facts about a trip I undertook as part of the local government team for the National Party. I am not on the Health Committee and have not had any involvement in this water debate.

Last year I was travelling down south and visited some small rural councils in the Mackenzie country, Waimate, and Ashburton—that part of the world. It was quite an enjoyable trip, because it was just after the dog microchipping debate. We had a lot of fun talking about the problems the Government had encountered with regard to that debate. We were also talking about waste, because a select committee was doing a lot of work on waste. Those councils were very proud of the work they had done in waste minimisation and waste recovery. They were very proud of the fact that the work they had undertaken was having quite a significant impact and was not costing the ratepayer too much. In our conversations with the councils, we started to talk about the issues that are confronting them, given that they are doing so well in the areas I just mentioned. They all said that the problem they now have is the impost that the Government is putting on them—on small, rural councils—in regard to standards. I asked what on earth they were talking about. They started to talk about water standards. That is when I first became aware of the bill we are currently debating.

The issues that those councils could not come to grips with were quite simple. Those councils, in many places, have 30 or 40 bores or water sources that feed their population. They gave me an example of one water source that feeds seven farms. They made me aware of the fact that as part of the infrastructural demands of this legislation, they would have to put in some significant infrastructure and a lot of money in order to bring the water that has been feeding those seven farms for many, many years up to scratch, as the new bill demands. They could not understand the need for that. The water has been feeding those seven farms for many, many years. There has been no problem, and no problem was expected. Yet they will have to put in infrastructure to the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to meet the requirements of this bill. The councils just could not understand the logic of doing that.

One of the things we have not discussed or talked about in this Chamber is the situation when the water is not drinking water per se. The water source the council was going to have to bring up to scratch not only fills the teapot but also feeds the farm. The thing the councils made me aware of at the time is that this legislation brings water up to a standard that is not necessary—in this case, for sure—to feed the crops. Ninety-eight percent of the water that comes out of that water source is to be used to water the crops; 2 percent is to be used to fill up the teapot.

The councils could not really come to grips with the impost that this Government was putting on them in regard to that infrastructure. It is a whack on the ratepayer—it is a big whack on the ratepayer. I have heard the Minister talk about the $153 million or $154 million that he is putting into the pot to sweeten and soften the cost impost. I can tell the Minister now that he is hundreds of thousands of dollars light. Local government has made that clear. It has costed this measure, it has done the homework, and it knows that this will be a huge cost on it.

This comes at a time when there has been a rates revolt around the country, and it is at a time when the inquiry has come out and said that local government actually has the tools and that it is just overspending. It is just putting in gold-plated infrastructure. The inquiry led by David Shand was very clear when it stated that local government does not need to spend as much as it is spending. It said local government does not need to gold-plate everything, so it should just cut back. So what does the Government do? The Government says to those people that it knows the councils have been feeding those farms and people have been drinking that water for hundreds of years, just about, but, guess what, it wants them to gold-plate the water supply. The Government wants them to gold-plate that water supply, which will cost the councils a lot more, and can members guess who pays? The ratepayer pays. And can members guess what happens? There is a rates revolt. That just does not seem fair.

I go back to Tony Ryall’s comments, when he made it clear that we should let the locals sort out the local solution that they need in order to bring their water up to standard. As the councils said to me at the time, they do not need to invest tens of thousands of dollars in order to put this water in; they just need to buy a filter for each tap, so that when people fill up the teapot with water from the tap, the water is of good enough quality. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Chaiperson. Standing Order 137(3) talks about the closure motion. This is a very contentious bill, particularly with regard to the costs involved for rural New Zealand, and a lot of National members would still like to seek the call. They still have some valuable contributions to make to the debate, and I ask that you consider that, please.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this

I can assure the member Nathan Guy that I will certainly take that into account as per Standing Orders, and in light of the speeches we have had.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this

I rise to take another call because there were a number of matters I did not canvass in my previous address. I wanted to look at elements of this part of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in order to add some clarity to the process that the Health Committee went through. The timetable for drinking-water supplies to comply was of enormous concern, as has been mentioned by other members. Local Government New Zealand and individual councils all made the case that they needed to be able to fit in any necessary compliance with this bill with their long-term council community plans. That is all part of their planning process. Therefore, it was extremely necessary that the bill had dates that would allow for the alignment of its time frames with the Local Government Act 2002 planning cycle, and with the Drinking-water Assistance Programme, as well. So amendments were made that have made the bill significantly better.

Another issue of significant concern to my electorate, and to many other rural electorates, was rural agricultural drinking-water supplies. Again, as has been mentioned by other speakers, the concern was that we would have an awful lot of water that would be of a very high quality—and expensive as well—and that we would be feeding it to a lot of stock. In the course of the select committee process we managed to get around that by adding this definition: “ ‘rural agricultural drinking-water supply’ means a large, medium, minor, small, or neighbourhood drinking-water supply from which 75 percent or more of the water supplied—(i) is used for the purposes of commercial agriculture; …”. I just say for the record that this issue is still causing some concern in my electorate, because the fact that it is actually for commercial agriculture causes concern for suppliers who have a lot of what we would call lifestyle blocks, where they are not always making money out of the stock but they are feeding that stock an awful lot of drinking water, which has become of quite a high quality and very expensive.

So that part of the bill still causes some concern in rural New Zealand. I hope that concern is proven to be unfounded. Time will tell, I expect.

A number of councils noted their concern about the definition of “reasonable steps”. In fact, new section 69G, which is to be inserted in the Health Act by clause 7, does not define “reasonable steps”, because a decision was made that defining the term could limit the steps that could be taken, and apparently there is other legislation where the term “reasonable steps” is utilised. So we are hoping that that will become clearer to the people who are supplying the water, as time goes on.

We also put some extra clauses in to define “all practicable steps”, because it was very, very important for affordability to become a factor there. Once again the Health Committee worked hard to get that sorted out so that it was presented in an acceptable way and so that cost would become an acceptable factor in this bill.

I just want to talk about two other things in relation to the bill, with the first being the public health risk-management plans, which are now a requirement. Public health risk-management plans are pretty scary sorts of things, I think, for someone who is new to putting them together, and smaller suppliers are wondering what they are and whether this is a huge amount of bureaucracy. Again, I hope this will be seen for the benefit it will bring in terms of assessing risk and mitigating its effects wherever possible. Again, we would look then at “all practicable steps”, and affordability would come into that assessment.

One of the issues raised in the select committee was around the drinking-water assessors. I read in one of today’s newspapers that environmental health officers are in very short supply, and this issue was canvassed during the select committee process. I am assuming that these people are, in fact, environmental health officers, and perhaps the Minister would like to take a call on that.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this

Part 2 includes debate on the schedule.

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

I am pleased to be able to take a call in the debate on Part 2, which is quite a wide part. It refers to responsibility for local government in respect of restricting water supply. It restricts water supply in a number of circumstances, related mainly to the non-payment of costs. The wider issue of costs to consumers and the ability to pay is important. Similarly, Part 2 contains information about meetings, in respect of notifications from territorial authorities on land information memoranda. It also includes the revocation of the former Water Supplies Protection Regulations, which is an issue because it raises the level of disparity of standards, and in the schedule there is a discussion about various changes to those standards.

National is particularly concerned about the costs to local government associated with these changes, particularly as the supplier to various water schemes. Throughout the submission process on this bill we heard a wide and divergent number of views on the costs that this legislation will have on local government as a water supplier. The reason that the cost burden on the supplier is important is that in most cases those costs will be transferred either to the ratepayer or to the user of the water, through whatever mechanism—charging—a local authority or water supplier might use.

The costs have been quite variant. When the bill was introduced we heard that the costs were between $50 million and $250 million, which is quite a significant variation. We had further advice from the officials that the costs could be up to $300 million; then Local Government New Zealand estimated the cost to be much closer to $800 million. If the cost is at the higher level of that range, that would have a significant impact on communities, and that is the reason National members have asked this question of the Minister: “What does the Government think the cost to water schemes to comply will now be?”.

We have also asked the Government where the problem here is. We have asked it to please provide us with the data and the information that shows there is a significant public health risk associated with these changes. Our experience in the Health Committee was that the information being supplied to justify that is not reliable. We state in our minority view that the public does want good-quality water but that it is a trade-off because there is a cost associated with the various levels of quality, and we have wanted the Government to give us an indication on those costs.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this

I am very pleased to rise again to speak on Part 2 of this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I am very fond of water. I think water is terribly important to us in New Zealand, and to me personally water is very important. I would like Government members to tell the Committee, because we are very interested to know this, how they are getting on with their scheme. This Labour-led Government said that the Minister of Health would contribute $154 million over the next 10 years to small communities in order to help them to get their drinking-water supplies up to standard. I would like the Minister of Health, or one of the many Ministers who has sat in the chair, to answer that question. In my electorate, which is made up of small communities that administer small, expensive water schemes, those who have tried to get some of that pot of gold from the Government have found that it has not been forthcoming, no matter how hard they have tried.

The commentary on the bill states: “We were informed that most of the large and medium-sized supplies already comply, or almost comply, with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2000.” It goes on: “We understand that these suppliers will have little difficulty in complying with the 2005 standards.” Well, that is just fantastic. It is fantastic for Auckland and Wellington; it is fantastic for Hamilton and Christchurch. But it is not fantastic for the small rural and provincial communities around New Zealand and, in particular, in my electorate of Otago.

In speaking to Part 2, I just want to draw to the attention of the Committee the submission from the Waitaki District Council. Waimate is a small rural community in South Canterbury that is soon to become part of the Waitaki seat. The Waitaki District Council manages the Waimate urban water-supply scheme and six rural water schemes within the Waitaki District. I can assure members that the thought of the implementation of this legislation fills that council and that community with dread. The reason it fills the community and the councillors with dread is that they know full well that it will be not a matter just of the costs associated with the implementation of this legislation but also of the amount of work, officer time, and the cost to the community that will come from both the upgrades themselves and the time that officers will have to spend on making alterations to the council’s planning documents, as required under Part 2.

The submission from the Waitaki District Council states, with reference to the tap-and-cap assistance schemes, that it is aware that there are also a few community supplies within the district that are not managed by the council. That makes the situation even more difficult, because they will also need to access the subsidy programme if they are to improve the quality of the drinking water they supply. In other words, they cannot do it all by themselves. That council is concerned that the criteria could disadvantage these communities through their possible shortfalls in preparing a public health risk-management plan, an inability to find the local share of any subsidy granted, failure to provide an enhanced level of operator-expertise capacity, or sustain ongoing whole-of-life operational, maintenance, and renewals costs.

That paragraph spells out the concerns not just about privately owned small, rural provincial water schemes but about those schemes that are administered by the local authority. Some small water schemes have been just fine for the last 100 years and were put in the ground by the local farmers. There are still some farmers in my region whose fathers put in those schemes, and who until very recently were the only ones who knew where the pipes were; other than that, it was a matter of digging and hoping when there was some work to be done on those schemes. We are talking about small community water schemes here, which are owned and paid for by farmers through water committees or by small local authorities, who simply do not have the resources to comply with the onerous responsibilities of the requirements in this legislation.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this

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.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this

Gosh, it will be fun to respond to the comments made by the Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven. His is an interesting attitude. It really comes down to this fact—and I will read to the Committee from the Local Government New Zealand submission, which states: “The local government sector is, on the whole, supportive of the outcomes that the bill is trying to achieve, but has a number of concerns.” Its biggest concern is money. There are other concerns, which I will touch on in a moment.

One of the things that concerned local government—and we had submissions from a number of the councils—was that the Local Government Act 2002 requires local authorities to consider the social, cultural, economic, and environmental well-being of their communities in their decision making. They also have to consult, of course. The local authorities are already doing that. It then comes down to particular councils and what their ratepayers think are the highest priorities. They have to uphold a number of Acts—for example, the Health Act, and the Building Act. They also have other priorities—solid waste and human waste disposal, road safety, recreation facilities, etc.

But what we have here is drinking water being singled out as a priority above all of the other issues. That was of considerable concern to Local Government New Zealand. The Kaipara District Council made this comment: “The proposed legislation overrides the community engagement principles of the Local Government Act 2002 and disenfranchises our people.” Local government in my own electorate, in the form of the Timaru District Council, commented to me that it has prioritised the treatment of waste over many of the other responsibilities of the council—it has spent millions and millions of dollars on it. The Prime Minister herself has said that the rest of New Zealand’s councils should follow the Timaru District Council’s example when it comes to waste disposal. It has spent an awful lot of money on waste disposal because that is what the ratepayers wanted, even at considerable expense. But all of a sudden, councils are now given this other priority that supersedes all else, and ratepayers are told that whether or not they think they need it, it should be got on with.

It is of considerable importance that we realise local authorities are 20 percent of the suppliers, but—and this is the important bit—they supply 70 percent of the water. So an awful lot of suppliers are not local authorities. An awful lot of suppliers will not be able to supply their own water, under this bill, because they cannot afford to improve the water supply.

I will make another couple of comments. It would be interesting for the Minister to respond and tell us, if clean drinking-water is so important—and the National Party certainly believes that it is—why we still have some self-suppliers, such as schools and some hospitals, failing to meet the standards or having poor monitoring. Because it is not covered by this bill. This legislation, by any stretch, will not solve all of the problems. There are 624 schools and early childhood centres that are not connected to council water supplies—in other words, they are self suppliers—and 537 will not have to comply, even though they either fail the standards or have poor monitoring.

It was interesting to hear the Minister talk about grace and favour of water suppliers towards their neighbours. It is interesting that that is what we will have to rely on and that there was common sense before.

Let us talk about common sense. Common sense would indicate that we would pay for solving a problem. But then we get back to the point that we have not defined the problem. In fact, in the case of the Rangitīkei District Council, Bob Buchanan was telling us that he found that the statistics were horribly, horribly wrong. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research does not have a good way of collecting these statistics, and therefore the whole science behind this bill is questionable—we have said it over and over again. In fact, we have councils saying: “Show us the numbers. Show us that campylobacter is caused by water, rather than by chicken.”, when we know that largely the response to campylobacter is to clean up the act when it comes to the selling of poultry. We know that most of the notifications about campylobacter are not related to water.

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

In taking a call on clauses 1 to 3, in particular I would like to talk not only about the wider principles associated with the bill but also about the commencement date and the ability a future Government might have in order to have a more flexible and phased implementation of this legislation, if the costs require. We heard a very interesting debate from members on the National Party side highlighting the major areas of concern we have with this bill. We have been concerned about the fact that the Government cannot give us a firm indication about the cost of this bill, as amended, to local governments and other water suppliers throughout New Zealand. As members have said, the original advice in the bill, in its regulatory statements attached to the bill, was that this would cost between up to $50 million to $250 million. The select committee was subsequently advised that it would be more in the vicinity of $300 million, and Local Government New Zealand came forward and estimated $800 million. Since that time there have been some changes to the bill, which I think in many ways will mitigate some of that cost. But the Government has been unable to provide us with any indication of what those costs would be.

The second area that we have sought information from the Government on is a further clarification of the problem that the Government is seeking to cure. Of course, everybody is in favour of safe drinking-water, but the question is at what cost, and whether the current drinking-water is unsafe.

We asked the Government to provide us with evidence of drinking-water diseases and the consequences of them. Some members opposite gave us standard numbers that have been trotted out from time to time. But we were able to refer to the evidence of Bob Buchanan, the Mayor of Rangitīkei District, which cast some doubt over those statistics, when he talked about the fact that his district had indicated in official data that it had some sort of epidemic of water-borne diseases, and his research found that even the people collecting the data said that only half of it was ever investigated or confirmed.

So there really is an issue here of what the problem is, and what it will cost. We have not had any answers to those questions from the Government at this stage. Having said that, I think some sensible changes have been made in the select committee that mitigate the worst elements of this bill. There is increasing flexibility about neighbourly water supplies. I notice that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, called it a grace and favour water supply. I thought that was very unusual. “Grace and favour” is a rather regal phrase, I say to the Minister.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) Link to this

I follow that most excellent speech made by the Opposition spokesperson on health and next health Minister, Tony Ryall. He made an interesting point about local communities, which I want to pick up as I speak to the title and commencement of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. The point I want to pick up, which Tony Ryall so eloquently made, is the one about local authorities undertaking a cost and benefit analysis for any project that comes their way, and as part of that cost and benefit analysis—and I am not talking about grace and favour here; I am talking about cost—[ Interruption] I do not even know what grace and favour means.

We are talking about water, here. This is a serious issue. [Interruption] Ah, here we have it—a Minister in a dying Government. We had the D team, and we had the backbenchers, who were understandably disappointed because their political careers are over before they started, just about. But now we have moved forward. We are now on to the C team of Ministers, who are about to become disappointed, and whose only recourse is to sit on the bleachers and go snap, snap, snap. I want to thank them again for the attention they are giving me. I love water. The attention I have received over this issue has been most gratifying. In my electorate of Otago, which I wrested from David Parker, who is now a list MP, I have had the most wonderful support and the most wonderful attention, so I say thank you to those Ministers who are sitting on the other side of the Chamber. They are very quickly realising that with Labour at 14 percent behind National in the polls and the poll results getting worse every day, they have very little left to do but to go snip, snip, snip, and snap, snap, snap wherever they can.

But I will return to the bill, and to its title and commencement. This bill has caused a lot of worry for local authorities throughout New Zealand. In my last contribution to the debate, I noted that metropolitan areas and cities are mainly compliant with the provisions of this bill but that small communities and small local authorities are not. This Government has ceased to listen. It is out of touch with its constituency if it thinks a bill that suits Aucklanders will suit rural and provincial New Zealand. Perhaps that is part of the reason that the Government is 14 points behind National in the polls. Clearly, this drinking-water bill is causing an awful lot of anguish for local authorities because of the costs it will impose.

The Waitaki District Council has spent $12 million on upgrading its water scheme—no thanks to the Government. The council had a fear that if it left that hugely costly project for any longer, it would just become more expensive. I wonder how many other local authorities have imposed, or are imposing, huge costs upon themselves because they are fearful of what will come through in these drinking-water standards. What about the very real fear felt by those in smaller drinking-water schemes about the costs of upgrading their drinking water and how they will pay for that? How will people who live in provincial New Zealand be able to fund their $2,500 share of the capital upgrade of a drinking-water scheme?

This dying Government has stopped listening to people. It is driving this bill through, assuming that because Aucklanders and Wellington people, whose water supplies are mostly compliant, can afford it, then the good people in the provinces can also afford it. I tell the Committee, from my experience, that people in provincial areas, in small towns and on fixed incomes, cannot afford $2,500 as their share of the capital needed for this upgrade.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this

It is a privilege to follow Ms Dean because she is the lady who has just given us a speech about—

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) Link to this

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.