NEWS ON POLICY
AND POLITICS |
|
| A
MATTER OF OPINION IN
PARLIAMENT IN
THE NEWS Paid Parental Leave for self-employed begins more... Doha On the Brink more... United Future Announces Walking Access Policy and New Government Agency is Conceived? more... Government Energy Policy more... IN
CONSULTATION |
|
A MATTER OF OPINION |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Water quality - perfection at any price?New Zealand's public health officials will look upon last week's introduction of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill as a great leap forward in the quest for enhanced health safety management of New Zealand's drinking water. As objectives go ensuring that our communities have access to adequate supplies of quality drinking water seems an inherently unassailable one. That's certainly the view of the officials who expect us to regard as a good thing the shift in the application of approved water standards further along the path from voluntarism to compulsion. A bit like Mom and apple-pie, it's not something that is susceptible to criticism. In isolation that might well be the case. As currently written the Bill seems rational enough. Requiring drinking-water suppliers to take all practicable steps to provide an adequate supply of standards-compliant water and introduce public health risk management plans, it's fairly standard and, on its face anyway, worthy stuff. The Ministry of Health will like it too for the open door that it provides for the introduction or revocation of drinking-water standards, including specifications as to composition, transportation and aesthetic effects. Officials are also likely to welcome the Bill's provision of an escalating series of penalties to be introduced for non-compliance for the simple reason that it will mean they will get to call more of the shots. It's here that the first objection to this Bill lies. Wellington-based bureaucracies are not noted for their grasp on the practicability of what they demand for the rest of us. There may be nothing wrong with the principles involved - in the immediate case clean is necessarily good. However, the trouble lies in the fleeting regard that has been given to the implications of putting theory into practice. Significant among these is cost. As many communities around the country are finding, just the maintenance of existing water infrastructure is an expensive business. Enhancements of the nature contemplated by health officials will only be more so, giving rise to some real-world questions about who is going to pay for it all. To its credit the Government has anticipated this, providing $136.9 million for two assistance programmes: the laboriously entitled the Technical Assistance Programme (TAP) and the Capital Assistance Programme (CAP). These are intended to fund, in the case of the former, the development of the Public Health Risk Management Plans that will be required under the Bill and, in the case of the latter, infrastructure improvements. To smaller communities with limited fiscal options this might sound like a good deal. But as the very few suppliers who meet the 2005 Draft Guidelines for drinking-water management will attest, the cost of coming up to the Ministry's standard will quickly outstrip the available funding, particularly in light of the fact that government's largesse will not come in one useful lump, but instead be spread over 10 years. Even according to the Health Ministry's own best guess the level of expenditure required for infrastructure improvements may be as high as $250 million - and that in over just six years. This leaves something of a fiscal and chronological gap that someone or something is going to have to fill. This underscores two other problems, although they are less problems with the Bill than they are with the policy analysis underlying it. The first is the Health Ministry's apparent disregard of the many other infrastructural demands placed either by circumstance or by policy on local communities. The funding of local transport infrastructure is an obvious case in point and one that threatens to overwhelm local body funding capacity all by itself. Add to this the now untrammelled power of local government to extend its reach into non-core services and it's not hard to see a large and growing fiscal hole. It is no small irony in the case of the Auckland Regional Council that extra charging for drinking-water is seen as a means of funding public transportation, rather than necessary improvements to the city's stormwater system. Peter wants to rob Paul, leaving open the question what Paul will do when the need to address necessary improvements to water infrastructure arises. But in the face of unsafe drinking-water, isn't that all academic and isn't cost a secondary consideration? Maybe. But the working assumption upon which the Health Ministry seems to be proceeding is that current drinking-water supplies are in fact unsafe and, further, that any cost is justified in remedying the defect. This is the other weakness in the Ministry's analysis. Although quick to invoke the spectre of Walkerton, Canada, or Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where outbreaks of E.coli and cryptosporidiosis claimed some 100 lives, the Ministry is unable to quantify the actual risk in the local context. As it notes itself "being potentially waterborne, does not imply that a high proportion of [notifiable disease] is actually waterborne." Person to person contact, or contaminated food account for the majority of New Zealand cases, a fact that blurs not only the question of causation, but also the Ministry's intervention rationale. That said, it would be too much to claim that there isn't a problem, or risk of a problem, with New Zealand's drinking-water supplies. Nor could one reasonably assert that improvements to some local drinking water infrastructure is unnecessary. But 49 cases of (possibly) waterborne disease at a school camp in 2003, or contamination of the Masterton town water supply with unspecified consequences, are insufficient justification for a blanket policy of 'perfection at any price' such as the Ministry seems to be advancing. Apologists for the proposed regime will quickly point to the "all practicable steps" provision of the proposed Bill as the answer to this concern. But it must be remembered that this qualification is just that - a qualification. It is not an escape clause. Suppliers will still have to act and the threshold of what constitutes acceptable action will inevitably be a high one. In the end, some improvements are both necessary and desirable. But they will have to be paid for and many communities - not only small ones - will either be unable to come up with the cash, or will simply be forced to make another raid on the pockets of exasperated home-owners. The Ministry could have taken the approach of 'safety at reasonable cost', but it hasn't. It has instead remained focused on the worthy public health aim of high quality drinking-water for all, but in isolation of the larger questions about how its demands and the many other demands faced by local communities will be funded. The resolution of this should have been be a prior step. It is an essential one if the aim of ensuring enhanced health safety management of New Zealand's drinking-water is to be achieved in reality rather than intent.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IN PARLIAMENT |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bills IntroducedTelecommunications Amendment Bill (Hon David Cunliffe) The Telecommunications Amendment Bill implements the government's
pre-budget telecommunications stocktake package announced on 3 May. Provisions are included to require Telecom to provide access seekers with timely access and to supply services to a standard consistent with international best practice. Accounting separation is also imposed with the objective of increasing transparency of wholesale operations. The Bill will extend the Telecommunications Commission's powers so it may continuously monitor the telecommunications sector. New penalty provisions allow for a maximum fine of $1,000,000 for any breach of accounting separation between Telecom's retail and wholesale business activities requirements and additional pecuniary penalties of up to $300,000 may be imposed in other cases. The Bill has been referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. No date has yet been set for submissions. The Bill is due to be reported back to the House by 6 November 2006. Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill (Hon Pete Hodgson) The Bill aims to protect the health and safety of people and communities by promoting the provision of adequate supplies of safe drinking water from drinking-water supplies. The Bill provides among other things:
First ReadingBusiness Law Reform Bill Before Select CommitteeOpen for submissions
Submissions closed
Second ReadingChildren, Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) Committee stageChild Support Amendment Bill (No 4) Third ReadingHistoric Places Amendment Bill
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IN THE NEWS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Doubt Cast On SOE Board AppointmentsA survey of SOE directors by Victoria University senior lecturer, Dr Richard Norman, has highlighted a common Wellington perception that appointments to the country's largest state-owned enterprises owe too much to political factors. Nearly half or the 62 SOE directors surveyed responded. Two-thirds of them expressed the view that the appointment process was overly subject to political influence. National has quickly pointed the finger at government cronyism and has called for merit-based appointments. The research comes at a time when government is looking to encourage SOEs to expand their areas of commercial activity and is all the more embarrassing as a result. Paid Parental Leave for self-employed beginsFrom 1 July, self-employed parents became eligible for 14 weeks' paid parental leave. Paid parental leave for employees has been available since 2002. The scheme will now be extended to a range of self-employed people, including farming families. The maximum rate will also increase from a pre-tax maximum of $357.30 to $372.12 per week. 2000 families are expected to benefit from the provisions. Doha On the BrinkTrade Minister, Phil Goff has said that the Doha Round trade talks are at risk of collapse as a result of a failure amongst the main players to reach agreement on key issues. "Unless the parties can find a way around the stalemate, the time left to complete the round before the expiry of the Trade Promotion Authority will run out," Mr Goff said. Areas of disagreements include the appropriate level of tariff cuts to allow market access for agricultural and non-agricultural goods, and the level of cuts proposed for domestic subsidies on agriculture in the U.S. The failure of the Doha Round would seriously damage the multilateral trade system and deny the development opportunities that trade liberalisation promotes. WTO Director-General, Pascal Lamy, has been empowered to broker a deal between the factions and will consultations with the G6 countries (US, EU, Brazil, India, Japan and Australia) and others in the hopes of reaching an agreement. United Future Announces Walking Access Policy and New Government Agency is Conceived?United Future conservation spokesperson, Gordon Copeland, has announced the party's policy on walking access.Exercising its prerogative to be involved in the development of the government's public access policy United Future has announced its intention to protect the rights of both recreational users and landowners. "The present circumstances governing public access are an
uncomfortable mix of legally existing but inadequately defined public
access corridors (so called 'paper roads')… It is not practical
to continue with this situation as it stands and decisions need
to be made," Mr Copeland said. Government Energy PolicyMinister Responsible for Climate Change Issues David Parker has
released government papers on energy and energy efficiency, and
a report looking at the government's direction on climate change
policy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinksThis
publication is intended only to provide a summary of the subject
covered. It does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal
advice. No person should act in reliance on any statement contained
in this publication without first obtaining specific professional
advice. If you require any advice or further information on the
subject matter of this newsletter, please contact the partner/solicitor
in the firm who normally advises you, or alternatively contact:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© Russell McVeagh 2005. All rights reserved.