-
TAUMATA AROWAI—THE WATER SERVICES REGULATOR BILL
First Reading
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At an appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported back to the House by 17 June 2020.
Tuatahi, e tika ana ki te tautoko tēnei kaupapa. He kaupapa tino taumaha mō te, mō Aotearoa; engari e tika ana ki te tautoko tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira i tēnei wā. [Firstly, it is appropriate to support this matter. It is a weighty matter for New Zealand; however, it is right to support this important matter at this time.]
For two weeks in August 2016 a tragedy unfolded in Havelock North. In this beautiful, quiet, Hawke's Bay town people were struck down as they went about their normal daily business, suffering from diarrhoea, flu-like headaches, muscle pain, and vomiting. Before the end of the month around 5,500 residents out of a total population of 14,000 had been afflicted. Schools closed, businesses shut down, once busy cafes were empty, streets fell silent. Forty-five residents found their way to the hospital and up to four people subsequently died. A further unknown number are thought to have suffered ongoing, debilitating, and life-altering ill effects.
For families who lost loved ones or whose whānau may have suffered continuing afflictions the human cost is immeasurable. The economic impacts—less so in the wash-up dollar costs—were estimated at $21 million. The damage in terms of the towns, the regions, and the country's clean, green image is unquantifiable. As we all know, the devastating effect was not the result of some alien contagion. The explanation was much more banal. There was contamination of the town's drinking water—drinking water which was supplied by a public body and which should have been subject to comprehensive and rigorous screening, testing, and treatment to ensure its safety for public consumption. It was not.
The subsequent Government inquiry pointed to systemic regulatory failure—a verdict confirmed by the Three Waters Review. A similar event occurred in the same town in 1998. Lessons were not learnt. In addition, at a conservative estimate, every year 34,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking their household water. Research indicates that for every registered case of illness from waterborne contamination there are probably several others that go unreported. At any other time there are likely to be communities across Aotearoa on permanent boil-water notices due to toxic contamination. In others it's becoming an increasingly frequent requirement that residents have to boil the water before they brush their teeth or buy that water in plastic bottles if they can afford it. In others still, the infrastructure and treatment plants for water are outdated or no longer fit for purpose.
The Government has made it clear all along our determination to put the health and safety of New Zealanders first. With the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill we're taking concrete steps to rectify the broken—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the chair.
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, with this Taumata Arowai–the Water Services Regulator Bill we are taking concrete steps to rectify the broken regulatory system for water. The bill is a milestone for drinking-water safety in New Zealand. It implements our decision to create a new regulatory body to oversee, administer, and enforce a new drinking-water regulatory system, which will also help improve environmental outcomes for our waterways, lakes, and rivers.
As part of this Government's broader package of water reform, the bill establishes the water services regulator Taumata Arowai as a new Crown agent. Taumata Arowai will: protect and promote drinking-water safety and public-health outcomes; help build and maintain public confidence in drinking water through leadership and communications relating to drinking-water safety and regulation, including the management of risks to sources of drinking water; monitor and enforce compliance with drinking-water regulation; and build capability among drinking-water suppliers and the wider industry by promoting education and training.
Being a Crown agent will help Taumata Arowai to build credibility, have a dedicated and sustained focus on drinking water, and recruit highly skilled people. Taumata Arowai will have sufficient independence to protect the integrity of its decision making. Establishing the new regulator as a Crown entity which focuses primarily on drinking water is an approach that is strongly supported by local government.
The new organisation will also play a role in improving environmental outcomes for fresh water. It will provide much leadership guidance and transparency relating to the environmental performance of waste water and stormwater networks. It will also promote public understanding of how these networks are performing.
The bill establishes a Māori advisory group to advise Taumata Arowai on Māori interests and knowledge. This role includes providing advice on how to enable mātauranga Māori and tikanga Māori to be exercised, and how to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.
For too long we've taken our water supplies for granted. With its dedicated focus and remit Taumata Arowai will address this. "Taumata" is a term used for a summit, symposium, or congress. "Arowai" is a compound word, composed of "aro" and "wai". "Aro" means to give attention to, to focus on, or be in the presence of. "Wai" is water. The entire name conveys the weight and responsibility as well as the focus and authority of the regulator.
The Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill is the foundational legislative architecture of a broader package of reform and collaboration with local government and the wider water sector. The next complementary initiative is a water services bill, which the Minister proposes to introduce to the House early in 2020. This will provide the detailed regulatory framework for Taumata Arowai's remit and power up the new regime.
For the purpose of context the Minister wants to mention and foreshadow another crucial work stream: delivery and funding of drinking water, waste water, and stormwater services, also known as the three waters. We've heard and understand from three waters research that some communities are facing challenges relating to upgrading or replacing infrastructure or simply meeting existing regulatory standards. Further work in collaboration with local government will look at options for addressing this. Some of the communities that are likely to face the greatest challenges are in rural areas. We are determined that rural New Zealanders should not be second-class citizens when it comes to the quality and safety of their drinking water. A rural drinking-water advisory group will be set up to explore solutions to challenges specific to smaller rural communities.
Drinking water quality can be a matter of life and death. The fractures in our regulatory system and our general lack of awareness of water quality issues have been building for years, if not decades. We have an opportunity to deal with this decisively. If we do not, we risk not only New Zealanders' health and safety from the most basic and essential of commodities but the overall wellbeing of our communities. We risk negative impacts on our image as a country that cares about its environment and the tourism industry that thrives on this. We risk putting the brakes on growth and economic development. We will lose focus on other challenges, including the potentially devastating human and economic impacts of climate change on our essential water services.
The Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill is the first step in a comprehensive series of reforms to meet these challenges. The Minister would like to acknowledge the constructive collaboration of local government and the wider water sector in developing these reforms. She looks forward to working further with them on the next steps in the programme. The Minister would like to thank all colleagues for their support and contribution towards the bill and the wider three waters reforms.
Finally, the Minister would like to acknowledge the work of the Havelock North drinking water inquiry. One of the inquiry's key recommendations was to create a dedicated drinking-water regulator. Through this bill, we are responding to that recommendation. I commend the bill to the House.
-
DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the chance to speak to Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill.
It'd be of no surprise to the House that we'll support this to select committee, but with caution. The caution we've well heralded—it's in the same, similar, vein that we've expressed caution around the wider three waters work that's been undertaken by the Government, and relating back first, and in the primary instance, to cost that we're not clear on and the impact of those costs on local communities.
In this context, when we're talking about work on a water regulatory framework, we had begun work on this when we were in Government, as Madam Speaker well knows and was very much involved in. Thank you for your work, Madam Speaker, in the past.
So what we know from the general policy statement (GPS) in this particular bill is that it's implementing a new body, a new regulatory body, to oversee, administer, and enforce a drinking-water regulatory system. It will be a new Crown agent providing for, as the GPS says, "objectives, functions, operating principles, and governance arrangements." The reforms are designed to provide clear leadership—is what we're told—and to significantly strengthen compliance, monitoring, enforcement, and equip the new regulator with powers and resources needed for that capability. I think these are interesting words, "support suppliers of all kinds", I'll refer shortly to how that becomes quite crucial when we think about costs, "supporting suppliers of all kinds"—if that also includes small suppliers, then that's when the real rubber hits the road as far as we're concerned.
It's also around managing risks to drinking-water safety, ensuring that people can access safe water, improving environmental performance, transparency, and then that national-level oversight.
So these are all good and goals that we would support. But then a little bit later on in the GPS we start to get into some of the wording where we can also see—and I'll refer shortly to Treasury's concerns around where this bill is and could be heading. So while it's saying that there should be a strong focus on building and maintaining the expertise and capability, the approach, it's said, is to "build confidence in the safety of drinking water". Well, there'd be no sure-fire way to diminish that confidence if the price tag with this is monumental and an uphill battle for small councils and for small private providers.
Back to some of the mechanics: I said earlier that Taumata Arowai will have a governance board; it will also provide for the establishment of a Māori advisory board. I think that also is something that we should flesh out in select committee, where, on the one hand, it's said in the Government policy statement that we should be having clear leadership around this regulatory framework. On the other hand, when it comes to the Māori advisory group, the words "flexibility" and "enabling interpretations to change over time" and "adaptation"—we need to ensure that there's clarity for everything and for everyone associated with this bill. So let's flesh that out in select committee.
Now, just as I alluded to earlier comments from Treasury, they have been very clear in their impact assessment that the problem for small suppliers could become quite, well, problematic and monumental. They've said here specifically that there will be developing cost estimates in addressing risks and affordability for those small drinking-water suppliers, such as marae and papakāinga, and their ability to transition to a new regulatory regime—that's going to be an issue, and we need to be very careful to keep that in mind.
I'll just finish with two other issues. One is time: the ability for a transition time for any suppliers, and for the select committee to keep that in mind. The other would be getting that real clear focus on actual costs. So we know that Beca estimated a while ago in a report that they prepared that the cost—in terms of some of this three waters infrastructure and this—could be around $65 per person in Auckland to upgrade water treatment facilities, and in Gisborne the costs would be $1,626 per person. So we need to understand the cost to small councils, to the private suppliers. We support this through to select committee, we'd encourage stakeholders to make a submission, and we would look forward to the day when we can avoid boil notices, such as went out this afternoon from the Taupō District Council for Kinloch and Whakaroa areas. Long may—well, short may the day come when we don't have to send out boil notices in Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
-
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It comes almost as a surprise to learn that we have different drinking water-standards around the country—that in Gisborne there's going to be a whole lot more work required than there might be in Auckland to bring up to standard our water; the very essence of what we need to live. So this bill is well overdue. I must say, it's almost, to ordinary New Zealanders—I think it comes as a surprise to know that we don't already have an oversight entity which determines how our drinking water is delivered. So this bill is a huge step forward and long overdue, as events have shown.
But I think what is really great about this bill is the approach that it's taken. It's not heavy-handed. It's, in fact, quite a light touch, because absolutely you want to leave the management of water at a local body level. That's really, really important. I know in Christchurch, where I come from, in Christchurch Central, the great artesian water we have there is something that's held really dear. Certainly, the idea that water might have to be treated with chlorine or otherwise is contentious—
Hon David Parker: It currently is.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —in some places, Mr Parker, in some places. Some parts of Christchurch are treated with chlorine and the city council there is doing a fantastic job to try and obtain security, both of supply and of delivery, so that chlorine can be taken out of the water. But what this bill does is it's going to set up an entity that will set the standards, but not necessarily the methods.
The other thing that it does—which is really important as well—is it will set up a support network, a framework which can assist councils. We know that big councils are probably pretty well-equipped to deliver the infrastructure, deliver the knowledge and the technology, but there are a lot of small councils out there. The wider Canterbury region is a really good example of that with Hurunui, a very small council. It's going to be onerous for them to obtain all of that knowledge and all of the ability to deliver. I imagine Mr Doocey will speak on this shortly, but this is a great step forward to enable that to be done.
So the other good thing about this bill is the way it clearly recognises the Māori interest, because it's very important that we recognise the absolute importance of te wai to what goes on. If you look at clause 5 of the bill, it sets out not only the principles of the Treaty—Te Tiriti—as a really important value but also tikanga Māori, and that's important as well because it's not just the principles but it's also the place that water holds in Māoridom. So I'm very pleased to see that throughout the bill that is all taken into account, including in the governance and the advisory board. So that's a great step forward as well. But really what this is about is making sure that the delivery of water—essentially, that our water is drinkable or "potable", the word that no one actually uses, and that it doesn't make us sick. And the fact is that at the moment, under our current framework, people get sick in their thousands from drinking our water. So we, as a First World, wealthy country, need to lift our drinking-water standards. That's a fact, and this is the vehicle by which we will be able to do it. So it's great to see the Minister bringing this to the House.
If you look at the purposes of the bill and the objectives of the bill and of Taumata Arowai, they are to, basically, promote drinking-water safety—absolutely fundamental—but also to administer the system universally around the country, so uniformity. It is outrageous that people in rural areas do not get the same quality as those in urban areas. So that's something we need to change. I know for some people it will be difficult, because if there's any drinking-water network, then that will fall under this piece of legislation. Whilst a self-supply—one dwelling supplied from rainwater or a well, or whatever—falls outside of the Act, as soon as it becomes a network serving two or more it will fall under the Act, as it should, because that is drinking-water supply, and we need to make sure that anyone or any group of people supplying others meets appropriate standards.
This bill is a real step forward. It's something that's long been needed—tragedies in New Zealand have shown us that it's needed—and I look forward to it getting to select committee, getting a really thorough examination by that hard-working committee, and coming back to the House as a better and even more effective bill to keep our drinking-water safe. I commend it to the House.
-
Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak on this Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. Now, any responsible Government would take people's health and safety issues seriously, and this bill is about the establishment of the water services regulator. In spite of some particular concerns, we believe that the intention is good and we will support the bill to go to the select committee. The bill itself also covers some aspects of the new body, including the objectives, the function, the governance, the management, and also the operating principles.
Now, the main background of this bill is the contamination of Havelock North's drinking-water supply in August 2016. Of course, the contamination led to the outbreak of gastroenteritis. In Havelock North, about one-third of the residents in the town became ill, so it was a major issue to us and it was shocking news to the country. So that was the background. The then National-led Government acted quickly and we initiated the independent inquiry. Two reports were submitted in the following year—in May and December 2017, respectively. The first report focused on identifying what happened, what caused the contamination, and also the conduct of those who provided drinking water. The second report focused on broader systematic issues and also had some recommendations. So that was the main background.
But this bill itself, of course, would be able to provide clear leadership in terms of regulating drinking water, and it also would strengthen compliance, monitoring, and enforcement relating to drinking-water regulation. So there are merits here, and that's why we would support this to go to the committee.
At the same time, we do see some risks in the bill, some uncertainties and some challenges—for example, the new regulator may face challenges in terms of a lack of capability, capacity, and even expertise and funding in terms of carrying out its functions. Related to this is a challenge to the new regulator in terms of building and maintaining its credibility and also confidence among stakeholders. So these are some challenges and risks. That's why we believe it's important for the bill to go to the committee to be further examined and also to enable people to make submissions to improve the bill.
Our concern also relates to some other areas, particularly about the cost, because many smaller councils may find it very hard to fund the new regulations. The Government has been putting more and more responsibility on local councils, and many of these responsibilities would cause more financial burden to local councils. That's why we believe we need to make sure that smaller local councils will be able to fund these new regulations. It may be OK for Auckland Council because Auckland Council is a very big council, but smaller ones can be very difficult because they have a very limited ratepayer base. So these are some concerns.
Above all, we believe we should be able to support the bill to go to the committee, and then we will be able to further improve the bill and then make it work. Thank you.
-
MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. I rise to give New Zealand First's support for this Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill—I hope the pronunciation wasn't too horrific; my apologies to anyone that was offended by that. So this is the stand-alone water regulator that is the response to the Havelock water situation. I don't think we need to be reminded that it was a tragic set of circumstances. This regulator will give a high degree of focus to what is an incredibly important utility: our drinking water.
The information that we have here suggests that up to 34,000 people a year get sick from drinking water, which is not the ideal situation at all, obviously. In fact, our very own scheme, the Lawrence, Tuapeka water scheme, is on a boil-water notice at the moment; it had a pipe break, and for the last two or three weeks we've had boil-water notices. So it is such a ubiquitous thing, water, and its delivered by a plethora of different deliverers.
I had, myself, the honour of bringing the Ōtama rural water bill before the House earlier this year, and that was a fiercely independent group of local farmers that had put the Ōtama rural water scheme on; 230-odd households getting drinking water from that. You know, it does stir the emotions. They put a lot of work into that, they wanted to run it, they felt they had the competency—and they do have the competency—to do so. But it's that greater oversight that we need. I know there's those water schemes all around the country. I see Minister O'Connor there; he'd be well aware of the Hector, Ngākawau situation over on the Coast, where they too have a disputed ownership of a water scheme. And, you know, small communities take a lot of pride in delivering their water, but this is the 21st century, and we have an expectation of very high standards of drinking water, and that no matter where you live you should be entitled to have that standard of drinking water; certainly not a standard that would see 34,000 people getting sick.
Of course, there is the three waters reform that Minister Mahuta is bringing through. This is a wide-ranging piece of work—we talked about the infrastructure bill earlier on—to get some funding, because it is going to be expensive, but, you know, that's just the reality of the situation, and we will have to look at ways as to how we can fund these reforms and different special purpose vehicles, etc. for funding infrastructure. For small councils particularly, it is going to be quite a strain on them. The Gore District Council is quoting $60 million to get their three waters up to the standard that they're perceiving is going to be required. So that's going to be a significant cost on a rather small council.
So I don't think we've got too many concerns about this. It was a very clear directive from that report that came back from the Havelock inquiry. It does make sense. It's probably long overdue, if we're being honest. It's something that we would have expected would be just a given in a First World country like New Zealand; I think we've got the second best or the best freshwater standards in the world. So it's something that maybe we've just taken for granted because we have had such a high standard of water over time. We know our farmers are doing their best to protect their waterways and the reforms that are going on there. So fresh water's become quite a topic of conversation, and all its forms—and it's in the rivers, in the drinking water, and in the three waters with the waste water and sewerage and the like. So New Zealand First think this is a thoroughly sensible bill, and we will support it through to the next stage. Thank you.
-
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to take what will be a very brief call on Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill at its first reading. As you would have heard, we are supporting this bill at this stage.
This is the second bill that this Government has introduced to the House in response to the 2016 Havelock North drinking-water inquiry in New Zealand. The events of 2016 were a tragic reminder of how important for public safety it is to maintain excellent drinking-water standards; given that a third of the town's population were affected by that outbreak, especially. On average, around 30,000 people a year in New Zealand become sick from water-borne illnesses. It was so important that the previous Government moved so quickly to implement the inquiry that provided many of the recommendations that are now being implemented. This bill is an important part of a broader body of work that implements some of these recommendations. The bill sets out to establish a water services regulator—Taumata Arowai—as a new Crown agent and provides for its objectives, functions and principles, and governance agreements. The regulatory body will oversee, administer, and enforce the new drinking-water regulatory system.
Now, we broadly support the intentions of the bill but, as previous speakers have mentioned, we do have some reservations and we, as Denise Lee said, do encourage stakeholders to go to select committee and have their say. Our main concerns are around the cost to those very small drinking-water suppliers—private suppliers, that may not have the capacity to comply with the new regulatory requirements. Their size may well limit their capacity. They may not have the expertise or the funding available to comply. So these are some of the issues that will need to be closely scrutinised at select committee. Broadly, however, we support the intention of this bill.
The departmental disclosure statement states that this bill will be complemented by a separate bill that will, among other things, implement targeted reforms to improve the regulation and performance of waste-water and stormwater networks. In my electorate of East Coast Bays we see regularly, very regularly, the effects of decades of underinvestment and lack of regular maintenance. Our beaches are often closed. Browns Bay Beach, in fact, has been closed—only opened recently. It was closed for eight weeks because of E. coli contamination coming from a stormwater outflow at the northern end of the beach. Many broken pipes were found. We've got the same issues in Castor Bay and Takapuna and elsewhere in Auckland, and we need to take a serious look at the performance of our networks in Auckland and also in other urban centres. All the maligning of those people in the rural sector for the degradation of our waterways—the quality of our urban waterways and beaches are far worse and it's time we looked more closely at those. So I do look forward to the next bill to be introduced. But for now, for this bill, we broadly support it and I commend the bill to the House.
-
Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I'm pleased to stand for the Green Party and support the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. I've noticed that Opposition members are raising concerns about the cost and the previous speaker, Erica Stanford, highlighted the decades of underinvestment in infrastructure. That is what this Government is fixing and this bill is part of our whole approach to ensuring that New Zealanders can trust the water that comes out of their taps.
The Hon Willie Jackson painted the picture of what happened in Havelock North in August 2016: the four deaths there; the 5,000 people who got sick. But while the Opposition is talking about cost, I hope they also note that the cost of that outbreak with four people dying—the impacts in terms of human impacts, but also the economic impacts—it's estimated that the outbreak cost the town $21 million in lost economic activity. So not tackling this issue of drinking-water quality has serious consequences for individuals, communities, and also the economy. So the costs are well worth it and, as the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has signalled, this Government is working with local authorities to address the significant costs of dealing with underinvestment in infrastructure.
What is the problem we're trying to fix? It's not just Havelock North. There have been a number of incidents from Springston, from Darfield where people have got seriously sick because of contamination of water supplies. And as other speakers have noted, a number of smaller communities have got boil-water notices in place.
We have got drinking-water standards and an earlier bill this year that the Minister of Health introduced was to ensure that those drinking-water standards can be amended more quickly and effectively. But one of the problems that MartinJenkins identified in a comprehensive review making the case for a new regulator was that that is a relatively high tolerance across New Zealand for low compliance with drinking-water standards. The report noted—and I quote, "No formal enforcement action has been taken since the current drinking-water regime was introduced in 2007, despite widespread annual non-compliance with a range of regulatory requirements that could have a material impact on water quality and safety."
The fact that these standards, the drinking-water standards, aren't in force means that there are an estimated 866,000 people annually who are getting water from plants that don't comply with either bacterial, protozoal, or chemical standards. That is what this new regulator, Taumata Arowai, is going to help address because the bill sets out its objectives, its functions as an independent Crown agency in which the public can have confidence. One of those functions is in the compliance and enforcement space so that the drinking-water standards are actually implemented and where they are not, there can be enforcement action taken.
It also sets out quite comprehensively the functions and, as others have noted, there'll be a further bill introduced early next year, which will deal with that more comprehensively. So the bill also sets out the governance regime, the number of people that will be on the agency, and ensures that there is a Māori advisory board to deal with Te Mana o te Wai in ensuring that the regulator implements and has regard to that concept.
The other thing that's really important is the work that this Government is doing, led by Minister Parker as environment Minister, around protecting drinking-water supplies, because we have seen a major change in land use across New Zealand in the last several decades and that has compromised water quality in our lakes, in our rivers, and our aquifers. So it's the measures that are being put in place through a stronger national policy statement on fresh water to ensure that we better control those land uses that lead to nutrients, that lead to E. coli, that lead to sediment contaminating water sources, and then increasing the costs of treatment of water supply.
So this bill is part of this Government's much wider response to ensuring that New Zealanders can be confident that their drinking water from the tap is safe, is reliable; and that rivers, lakes, and other water sources—that we can swim in them safely without the risk of getting sick. So the Green Party is pleased to support this bill.
-
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I too stand with my colleagues to support the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill in its first reading tonight. As my colleagues have said, the National Party is supporting it through this first reading to the select committee, and the reason we're doing that is because we want to hear from submitters about this bill.
One of the concerns I have is the implication of cost to small communities and rural communities. And I think, you know, from a recent experience on the West Coast, we could do a lot for water quality and water sources—if we could keep 700 dead rats from washing out of the Department of Conservation estate into the catchment areas so that we don't have to pick them up. So water quality in rural areas is really important, but in my experience, my water comes out of a creek. It's got no treatment. It's got a bit of a filter and it does me no harm. Some might argue that it does.
But the reality is, in small catchments with small water schemes, the cost of implementing some of this regulation and this bill will be prohibitive to small communities—"small" being defined as less than 500 people. Now, we know from the paperwork that we've got in front of us that the cost to implement this could be upwards of $117 million a year for operating costs and nearly $700 million for the capital investment required. So for small communities, this is simply prohibitive.
So although we all want good clean drinking-water and we understand in the metropolitan areas that we do need this, because of the volume of people that are hooked on to these supplies we still need to be cognisant of the fact that we do have cost implications and these will be borne, because of the size of the rating areas, by small communities. As this bill comes to us today, we are not guaranteed where those costs are going to fall. I would expect they would come back to the ratepayers and certainly the ongoing running costs will.
So I do look forward to the select committee process and I do encourage the submitters to come forward and give us their views on it before we develop our standing or our support going forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is a split call. I call Angie Warren-Clark.
-
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand tonight and take a brief call on the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. I had the pleasure of being on the Health Committee when we passed the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill earlier this year, and we learnt all about Havelock North and the difficulties that had happened there and the number of deaths. So it's with great pleasure that I acknowledge the long period of work that we are undertaking in regards to three waters, including our drinking water, and that's what brings us here tonight.
Havelock North, with the four deaths and the 5,000 people sick, was a shocking event, and even though we acknowledge it may be expensive to fix, it is one that we do not resile from. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for her great work in this area, and I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
-
Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to make a short call on this very important bill that we are debating this evening. The National Party will indeed support this bill, but we do have some concerns that we would like to debate and thrash out in the select committee, mainly around the cost.
It's interesting. I read some analysis done by Beca, who had a look at the three waters in New Zealand and who summarised the fact that the costs of upgrading our three waters in this country are huge. The example they gave was that in Auckland it is about $66, but over on the East Coast, in Anne Tolley's electorate, it is over $1,600 per person. So it is staggering, and we want to know that this new regulatory Crown agency is going to do the work that, indeed, is talked about in this bill about compliance and monitoring.
I'm also interested to know that there is a Māori advisory board or grouping as part of this, and when I read the bill, I thought: why is a Māori advisory group a part of this bill? I can sort of understand why the Government has chosen to put iwi alongside this new Crown agency, and I think the reason they have done it is they are trying to work their way through, very gradually, a water-bottling levy. That's all gone very quiet in the last six or probably eight or 10 months, because I know from when I was a Government Minister how difficult that is, indeed, to bring in. Iwi rights and interests, I know, are paramount, but there's no mention of water bottling in this. There's no mention of water storage. This is focused purely on drinking water, because we know the water-bottling levy is indeed very complex.
I know Minister Parker is in the debating chamber this evening. It would be good to get an understanding from him at some stage: is the water-bottling levy going to be introduced before the general election in 2020?
Hon David Parker: Which election? Oh, 2020.
Rt Hon David Carter: That's the next one. The member didn't know.
Hon NATHAN GUY: So what does the Minister think? He's now procrastinating and thinking: "When is 2020?" He's only got about nine months before there's going to be a change of Government, so if he's going to bring in a water-bottling levy, he needs to get on to it. I suggest he works all summer on that particular issue. But the reality is that nothing much will happen on that. There was a whole lot of sort of political rhetoric in the 2017 campaign from Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party—"We're going to bring in a water-bottling levy." Well, the reality is almost silence.
Anyway, back to the substance of this bill. We support it cautiously. We've got a whole lot of questions in the select committee, and Todd Muller is going to lay out those questions very, very shortly.
-
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill, because I think we all know—based on what we've heard about the Havelock North situation—about the importance of having safe drinking-water. As we've heard in the House, about 5,500 people were affected by that campylobacter outbreak, about 45 people were hospitalised, and it's thought that it may have contributed to four deaths, and so it's incredibly important that we get this right.
The Government, back in 2016, established a two-stage inquiry. What this bill does is implement one of the main recommendations of their stage two report, and that was to say that we needed a dedicated drinking-water regulator, and so what we're doing today in speaking about this bill is the establishment of Taumata Arowai, which will be that independent drinking-water regulator. So what this bill does is it sits alongside another bill, the water services bill, that's currently under development. That will lay out all of the detail around the water regulations, but it will also lay out some of the detail around stormwater and waste water and also the thinking about protecting our water sources.
So what this bill here today, though, does is it establishes that new Crown entity, Taumata Arowai, and that will be, basically, responsible for the administration and enforcement of the new water regulatory system. But the other thing that it's going to be looking at is also providing some much-needed leadership around stormwater and waste water, because what we've got around the country at the moment is a whole lot of sewerage systems and stormwater systems that are discharging into our rivers and into our estuaries. That has got significant health impacts, and having that leadership so that we can actually get that right is going to be critically important. So this is a really, really important bill, and I'm really happy to commend it to the House.
-
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well, what a great opportunity to say a few words. I believe the last National speaker on this very important bill, the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. Of course, what a great privilege for me to follow our former agriculture Minister and now retiring MP, Nathan Guy, and asking the questions, of course, that I will put as part of this speech—which, of course, I will do. But I think we're all reflecting on the obvious question that is very much front of mind for us, which is: with the plethora of career options that lie in front of you, which one will you choose? I think that is the No. 1 question for us on this side.
Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, that's true—water bottling.
TODD MULLER: I think you have heard it here first: "Guy Mineral Water"—I'm sure it will go well.
But there are a few serious points that I'd like to make, and this is reflecting to the extent I could through the chatter from some of my colleagues and some of the average contributions from those on the other side on this particular issue. What I heard time and time again was an understandable anchoring of their conversation on the challenges of Havelock North and the requirement for this country to ensure that we have a standard that is consistent. No one argues with that, but where the Government quickly finds itself in trouble is the challenge of actually making this happen and putting some numbers around it.
Almost to a person tonight, the Government contributors have not mentioned the costs that will ultimately need to be borne by ratepayers. Now, we're not saying that the cost is not worth it, but let's have an honest and open and transparent conversation around the costs that are likely to be incurred by, particularly, those communities that have a relatively low rating base in terms of the numbers of people, and what this is going to mean from a back-pocket perspective for them. Now, the numbers have been provided. The fact that the Government has not chosen to voice it, I suspect, reflects their perspective on this issue, but to establish this new regulator will be somewhere close to $10 million over the next 18 months—
Hon Member: How much?
TODD MULLER: —$10 million—and then, in terms of their operational delivery, it will be pushing $44 million to $50 million. But, actually, that is just change relative to the costs that are assumed in terms of the infrastructure rebuild that is required across the communities across New Zealand, and in some of the numbers that have been expected, just in terms of a couple of subgroups that are identified in the regulatory impact statement, it is well over half a billion and close to $695 million. This is before we have even had the conversation around the extent to which a new regulator is going to look at the water infrastructure which was already in place that may well come under pressure in terms of coastal erosion and climate change in the next 10, 15, 20 years and the cost of moving that.
So we, from a National Party perspective, totally support the concept of having a regulator. We support the concept of having a conversation around how national standards should be applied, but please also reflect on the opportunity for some local flexibility, because if you are not careful you will force further costs on rural communities that are already buckling under the stress of having a Government who does not understand them and who is never there for them.
It was fascinating, the observation from my colleague Mr Guy in talking about water bottling. You could see when Mr Parker realised that he was actually being introduced into the debate, and he turned from writing his Christmas cards to listening. You could see the colour drain from his face, because what you did is you put out there the reality of a party that had campaigned on a promise, hasn't delivered it two years in, and they know they will not go to New Zealand with a water-bottling solution this side of the election—yet another example of a Government that's all talk, doesn't deliver. They set the standard of a failed experiment, and in one year's time, we'll see the back of them. Thank you very much.
-
KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): As a good Catholic man, I believe in the spirit of Christmas, and part of that is not biting at that sort of nonsense that we heard on the other side of the House. So I think this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill — First Reading
Sitting date: 17 Dec 2019This page displays your selected transcript.