New regulator ‘unnecessary’
Canterbury medical officer of health Alistair Humphrey has urged against setting up a new independent regulator as part of the overhaul of the country’s water delivery, saying the Ministry of Health can – and should – ‘‘up its game’’.
Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel also called for caution in the Government’s review of the so-called three waters infrastructure, saying there should be better understanding of the problems, risks and potential costs before ministers leap to a solution.
Their comments came during a workshop run by chlorination proponent and advocacy group Water New Zealand in which it outlined what it sees as the challenges and options for reform in the water sector.
Councils across the country could be stripped of responsibility for water provision under major new changes being discussed by the Government in the wake of the Havelock North outbreak.
During yesterday’s seminar – which attracted a handful of protesters outside – Water NZ chief executive John Pfahlert also defended his organisation after claims it is a lobby group for the water treatment industry and has conflicts of interest.
He told the audience of politicians, water engineers, health experts and campaigners that Water NZ’s only role was to ‘‘provide good, technical advice to water service managers’’ and that it was not there to promote a particular view.
‘‘We do not accept cash from chemical supply companies just to advocate for the consumption of chlorine.’’
Pfahlert, principal adviser on water quality Jim Graham, and technical manager Noel Roberts, talked about how reform may occur, the options for regulation and the advantages and disadvantages of the potential new models for water delivery – including the mooted superregions, which could see councils lose their control over water.
Water NZ has previously called for the Ministry of Health to be stripped of its regulation role, and decisions are expected in the coming months over that and potentially whether treatment should be mandatory – an issue Pfahlert said he would leave to a regulator to decide.
But he said the current regulator had been ‘‘missing in action’’, having not prosecuted anyone in 23 years.
‘‘It’s like driving a motor car – if you know you’re never going to get caught, what’s the disincentive?’’
Graham raised the issue of whether a regulator should be a standalone body or sit within a different organisation, questioning whether the standard-setter should have the role.
But Humphrey said Water NZ appeared to have a ‘‘fundamental misconception’’ about regulation, telling them responsibility for enforcement, monitoring and compliance lies with the Ministry of Health, not individual district health boards.
Humphrey agreed the ministry had failed as a regulator but questioned whether giving the role to another body would trigger improvements, suggesting to do so would be a costly and unnecessary exercise.
He told The Press: ‘‘We have a national system already in terms of compliance, monitoring and enforcement. That system clearly needs improvement, that is something we’re in agreement on.
‘‘Shifting around is not necessarily going to improve it, it needs to be resourced properly, it needs to be funded properly. Setting up a new body isn’t necessarily going to solve the problems, it will just pass them on to someone else at great expense.’’