Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Building and Housing: I move, That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Bill was introduced as a member’s bill in 1986, in the wake of the report on the fencing of private swimming pools by the Local Bills Committee in 1983. The report highlighted that an average of 10 children under 5 were drowning in private pools every year. In fact, this was the leading cause of accidental death for young children and second only to traffic accidents at the time. The report found that local authorities with pool fencing bylaws had far fewer drownings than districts that had no such bylaws. The committee’s conclusions ring as true today as they did 30 years ago: “(a) [Swimming pools] are a significant childhood water hazard; (b) Pool fencing is the most effective means of preventing drownings of pre-school children in private swimming pools; (c) It is totally impossible for parents to supervise their children every minute of the day;”.

Since the Act was first enacted it has been successful in reducing the number of fatalities of children under 5 years old in residential swimming pools, from about 10 per year to three per year. However, the Act is cumbersome for pool owners and councils. There is a lack of consistency in the way in which various councils across the country administer the Act, and the level of compliance is often mixed. In short, the Act has been a source of frustration for many councils and pool owners.

The Government agreed to go to the public to seek their views on how best to strike the right balance when it came to child safety and reducing the compliance costs for pool owners and councils. To that end a consultation document was released, Making pool safety easier: Proposed changes to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, containing proposals to reduce compliance costs while maintaining child safety. There were 392 submissions received from pool owners, the pool industry, safety groups, councils, professionals involved in pool safety, and others. The proposals received strong support, with almost all the proposals supported by over 80 percent of submitters. At this stage I would like to acknowledge and thank all those organisations and people who took the time and energy to submit on the proposals. It is really encouraging to see that so many people care so much about the safety of our young New Zealanders in and around swimming pools. The input provided by these submitters has been instrumental in getting the current bill in front of the House.

This bill introduces a more consistent and practical approach to protecting young children from drowning in residential swimming pools and will replace the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 with a new subpart in the Building Act 2004 dedicated to pool safety requirements. A pragmatic decision was made to incorporate the requirements in the Building Act 2004 because all the requirements relating to making pools safe are in fact contained in the building code, a code that has its genesis in the Building Act.

Although the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has been effective in preventing drownings of young children in swimming pools, the current law is excessively prescriptive, with inconsistent and cumbersome requirements that contribute little to young children’s safety. Specific issues include: some councils granting fencing exemptions for spa pools while some others do not; some councils inspect pools every 3 years while other councils have no regular inspections at all; garden pools and stormwater retention ponds have sometimes been interpreted as requiring fencing under the Act; and conflicting requirements for pool barriers as set out in the Act as well as the building code—under the Act the only type of barrier allowed is a fence. Councils have no enforcement powers other than to take costly and ineffectual prosecutions for breaches of requirements under the Act. Any exemptions to the fencing requirements must be granted by elected councillors, which is both costly and inefficient, and pool owners cannot appeal these decisions.

This bill will reduce the bureaucracy and compliance costs of the current regime, while also saving more lives by ensuring more consistent compliance across the country. Spa pool owners will benefit significantly from the proposed new legislation. Currently the rules around restricting access to spa pools and hot tubs are inconsistent and confused. Some councils will grant fencing exemptions for spa pools that have child-resistant covers, while other councils will insist on having a spa pool fenced. Few spa pools are fenced in practice, yet the rate of drowning is very low because spa pools generally come with a safety cover. Under this bill, spa pools and hot tubs with child-resistant covers will not have to be separately fenced any more. This is going to save owners of these kinds of pools a significant amount of money and hassle, and, importantly, it is not expected to affect the risk of young children drowning.

Another important change in the bill is that councils will be required to inspect pools 5-yearly. Currently there are no rules around the frequency of inspections. Some councils inspect 3-yearly, where other councils do not inspect pools at all. The 5-yearly inspections will mean that pool owners across the country will be subject to the same inspection regime. More important, this inspection regime will ensure that pool barriers of all swimming pools across New Zealand will continue to comply with pool safety requirements and thus help save the lives of young Kiwi children.

There are a number of other changes designed to reduce compliance costs, while making pool safety legislation more workable. Retailers and manufacturers will be required to inform buyers of their pools of their legal obligation to ensure that young children’s access is restricted. Pool safety requirements will not apply to water hazards such as garden ponds and stormwater retention ponds associated with homes. This change ensures that pool safety rules will be focused on residential swimming pools, which pose the greatest risk to young children. This change will end the frustration and expense for owners of these types of water hazards. Under the bill, any pool barrier will be permitted that meets the performance base standards of the building code. This means that owners of pools will no longer be restricted to fences as the only means to restrict access.

Finally, notices to fix and infringement notices will be the preferred tools for gaining compliance, with court prosecutions following only in the case of serious breaches of the requirements of the Act. These changes are expected to improve pool safety and are estimated to result in six fewer drownings per decade. These changes will also result in reducing compliance costs by an estimated $17 million. This bill will improve child safety around residential swimming pools. It will reduce compliance costs for pool owners. It will result in clearer, more consistent, flexible, and workable pool safety rules. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take this call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. Labour supports this bill going to the select committee. New Zealand is an island nation. We are surrounded by water, and yet every year an unfortunate number of our people, especially our children, drown. Many of us cannot swim. We are very pleased to be debating this bill today. It has taken a number of years for this bill to be discussed, and Labour is very happy to be in support of this bill going to the select committee.

New Zealand’s half-year drowning statistics were recently released by Water Safety New Zealand. Sixty-one people drowned to 30 June of this year, 2015. This is one-third up on the number for the same period last year, which was 46. January’s drownings, at 21, were more than double the number for January 2014, and Auckland’s drownings of 13 were more than triple the number of drownings in Auckland last year. It is absolutely crucial that as a country we, collectively as people, do everything that we can to protect especially our children from preventable dangers such as drownings. We owe this duty to our children and we owe it to the future of New Zealand. We must also observe our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to take appropriate measures to diminish child and infant mortality.

The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 was designed to increase the safety of young children by requiring pool owners to fence certain swimming pools. Proper fencing puts a physical barrier between young children and the pool. Fencing successfully safeguards our children from drowning where human error can often put children at risk. The wandering attention of those who are supervising our children near pools or forgetting to close doors leading to pools can be fatal.

Since the Act came into force 30 years ago, the number of young children drowning in home pools has gone down by two-thirds, from more than a hundred in the decade between 1972 and 1982 down to 30 in the decade to 2012, which is a great result. In the last 20 years 56 children have drowned outside homes, though, while at home here in New Zealand. Two-thirds of these children drowned in swimming pools while others drowned in spa pools, portable pools, or garden ponds. The current bill that is being proposed is in order to reduce this number of child deaths due to drowning in domestic pools by six every 10 years. It is a shame that the Government has not given the same attention it has given to the hazards posed by pools to New Zealand’s most vulnerable children to address the stock of damp, mouldy State houses.

This Government bill proposes to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 as well as to amend the Building Act of 2004. The changes are said to strike a better balance between protecting our children from drowning in home pools and making the legislation more workable for pool owners as well as the local councils. It is intended to reduce the compliance burden on pool owners as well as our territorial authorities in relation to residential pools. The changes could, it is said, result in cost savings in compliance costs in the order of $17 million if the spa pools with child-resistant covers no longer need to be fenced separately on the property. This bill should establish some certainty, especially for councils, about their obligations to inspect pools and to do this regularly every 5 years.

The existing Act has given rise to a lot of confusion. The very definition of “swimming pool” in the current Act is unclear. The requirements for restricting access to pools are confusing and inflexible. In addition, there is no national consistency in the way that councils check pools to ensure that they comply with the Act. The proposed bill would clarify that councils should be inspecting the pools every 5 years. I welcome the attempts to clarify for property owners exactly what their obligations are and, to me, it also seems sensible to put an onus on the sellers and manufacturers of spa pools, hot tubs, and portable pools to fully inform buyers of their obligations to encourage compliance.

Labour supports this bill to the select committee. This approach will give the general public the opportunity to have their say on the proposed changes. There has been consultation on the issues we are dealing with here as far back as 2008. Consultation on the policy to which this bill would give effect involved water safety groups, industry, and water safety representatives, and Auckland Council amongst others, but the general public who own the estimated 60,000 swimming pools under discussion, and who are the parents of the children we are at pains to protect, should also have an opportunity to be heard on this issue. Thank you.

I do not think that there would be any New Zealanders, either pool owners or non - pool owners, who would consider for one minute that the original legislation that was set up nearly 30 years ago was not well intentioned. At the time the statistics for young New Zealanders who were drowning were truly appalling and something needed to be done to remedy them. But, as is often the case with good intentions, sometimes the road to the ultimate result can be paved with all kinds of fraught difficulties and potholes and problems along the way. So it became very obvious, relatively quickly after the passing of the original legislation in 1987, that there were some frustrating inconsistencies with the legislation.

As someone who over the years has owned a couple of houses that have had swimming pools, when I had young children who were using those swimming pools, I became completely frustrated with the process and inconsistency that occurred in terms of compliance with a very good, well-intentioned piece of legislation. When you have a problem that is trying to be solved by legislation that is well intentioned, but the net result is one of frustration and inconsistency for the people who are trying to make that legislation work—the pool owners who understand the risks for young children, young neighbours, and people like that, who maybe are not able to be watched by their parents or caregivers every second of every minute of every hour of every day—then there are enormous difficulties in making that piece of legislation work. So this piece of sensible, pragmatic law that is being proposed in the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill I think comes as keenly awaited by many thousands of swimming pool owners across the country.

The bill is a sensible, pragmatic solution to what has been a frustrating and inconsistent piece of legislation for nearly 30 years—frustrating and inconsistent, but not poorly intentioned, as I said. The aim of this piece of legislation is to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, and, I would say, not before time. To then include this in building legislation also makes perfect sense, as far as I can see. At the moment the current rules are confused, they are inconsistent, and they are treated differently in different parts of the country. One local council will do checks more regularly than another local council. There will be inconsistencies in how the closure rates of gates are measured, their height, and all those sorts of things. There are also inconsistencies to do with the types of fencing or barriers required. So I am delighted that this piece of legislation will provide a greater degree of certainty and consistency across the country and, as I said, that is not before time.

The practical approach to spa pools and hot tubs I think is also something that will be welcomed by the people who own them. One of the annoying and frustrating aspects in the area of spa pools and hot tubs, for people who have them, is that they have been required to get separate consents for them. I understand that in this legislation the intention is to remove the requirement for consents for the installation and use of hot tubs and spa pools. That will come as a welcome measure on behalf of the people who own them. But more so will be the requirement that having lockable and permanent lids or covers for hot tubs and spa pools will now be the method by which the legislative requirements can be met and provided for. That is also a sensible and pragmatic approach.

This bill will reduce compliance costs across the country by many millions of dollars, I suspect, over the course of its duration. The associated costs for swimming pool owners and spa pool owners over the years have been quite enormous. We understand, obviously, the gains that have been made in terms of saving lives from drowning have been very, very good, but they come at a high level of frustration and cost. So to have those frustrations removed and the costs minimised, I think will be very, very welcome.

I am sure we are going to get an awful lot of submissions at the select committee, notwithstanding that this is, I hope, something that will be treated across the House in a non-controversial way. I think there will be a large number of both organisations and individuals who own swimming pools and spa pools who will want to make the point that they have found this existing legislation to be frustrating and difficult to work with. I am very much looking forward to chairing the committee as we go through this process in the House. I think that this bill is, as I say, keenly awaited by the many thousands of people who own and operate swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas. It is a timely and useful piece of legislation that I think will relieve the frustrations of a great number of people, whilst at the same time not removing in any way the obligations on those people to ensure that swimming pools, hot tubs, and spas are safe and that our young children, in particular, are protected from the risks of drowning in unnecessary circumstances. I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to it progressing through the House.

I am really pleased to take a call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. We have been talking a lot about protecting children, and at the core of this bill is the protection of people’s safety around swimming pools and spa pools. I distinctly remember in 1987, leading up to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, there being a spate of fatalities from drowning in swimming pools. There was a real campaign about addressing that issue. That piece of legislation went through the House and it was passed. It has done what it set out to do. The number of fatalities from drowning has reduced significantly from that time. When we consider our population, which has risen over the last 30 years, that is a significant issue. So I want, first of all, to acknowledge that the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has actually done its job. We on this side of the House, the Labour Party, will support this bill to go to the select committee. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act will be repealed by this amendment bill. We want to make certain that the safety of our children and our families is at the core of these changes. We need to be satisfied that everything that can be done will be done, as part of this amendment.

I also remember being part of a school board of trustees. I know that every time the Education Review Office review came round, that was one of the key features—the school swimming pool. Although we are talking about private swimming pools, I want to talk about schools and the role that schools play around water safety. I think they play a significant role, and I will link that to this amendment bill by saying that in a lot of our communities our people do not actually have swimming pools and they do not have private spa pools at home, but they do visit places where there are swimming pools and there are spa pools. So it is really critically important that schools play a role in ensuring that children, in particular, know the rules around safety and that they operate under good practice at those schools, so that that knowledge can be transferred to when those children are in a situation where they are, perhaps, visiting a property with a private pool. I know that children can be hugely influential with their parents as well, so having a set of guidelines for them will be very good for their parents who may or may not own swimming pools. I think it is a good idea for councils to regularly inspect private swimming pools to ensure that they are compliant. That is a very good thing.

I thought I might mention the role of young parents or new parents and parents with young babies. Last night we talked about extending paid parental leave. I think that an additional 8 weeks might be quite helpful for parents to be able to be with their child on safety issues around pools.

I think that although it is important to clarify the law and ensure pool owners have those options, I do not think the bill should be allowed to put aesthetics above safety. I do not know what the statistics are around drownings concerning spa pools, but I would suggest that the change around spa pools, in particular, is probably more to do with the aesthetics of not having to close off those swimming pools into a defined area by fencing them. That is something I would encourage and that I am sure the select committee will look at.

I refer again to the councils’ role in this bill. I would certainly be looking forward to hearing what their contribution to the select committee process will be and how they see this operating, and whether there will be significant cost for compliance. I read that 5 percent of young children who drown do so in temporary paddling pools. That is something that probably will not be covered by this bill, but it is certainly something that the select committee ought to look at, to make sure that it considers all options around the fencing of swimming pools. Also, as my colleague Jenny Salesa mentioned, a lot of our people who go swimming do not go swimming in private swimming pools. They go to the beach and they go to rivers, and that is a whole other area. I think that we need to look really closely at that as well. As I said, we will support this bill to select committee, and that is my contribution. Kia ora.

I rise to take a short call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. Essentially, I guess we have the question here around what good policy is—the balance between public safety, on the one hand, and the efficient administration of that policy, on the other. What is the right landing point with regard to that question?

One thing that really underpins this bill, as we read it for the first time, is that rules need to be effectively applied proportional to the risk at hand, and, of course, consistently applied as opposed to this sporadic application that has clearly been the case of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act since 1987. But, to be fair, we are not approaching this from a blank sheet of paper. We have an established piece of legislation—that Act that was passed in 1987.

We do have to acknowledge that that is an underpinning piece of legislation. It has been successful. It has kept young children safer than they otherwise would have been. The rate of drownings, as we have already heard from my esteemed colleague to my left Scott Simpson, has dropped from 100 young children in the 10 years to 1987 to 30 young children in the 10 years to 2012. These are young children being saved by this piece of legislation, so it is not surprising that the evidence shows that if we fence swimming pools, then we obviously reduce the risk of drownings. In fact, most, if not all—not quite all—drownings occur in pools with non-compliant barriers.

But as we have heard, there are some challenges with regard to the current law that this bill addresses. As early as 1989, 2 years after the initial Act came into place, feedback from the community was that it was difficult to work with. The rules were duplicated under two Acts. Initially, the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and, more latterly, the Building Act 2004 were particularly inconsistently applied and cumbersome. I think that that is probably the key message that the community has sent to us over the last few years.

There are wide variations in inspections—some are every 3 years and other councils have no planned inspections at all. Also, the view around needing a permanent barrier in respect of spa pools is, clearly, onerous when you look at the nature of spa pools today and the heaviness of the secure lid. That was disproportional to the risk at hand.

This bill, I think quite sensibly, seeks to bring together all those community concerns over the lack of consistency of reviewing the potential and particular barriers that are up there. There is a real focus on spa pools and how to more effectively manage those. The bill has a list of areas that we are going to step through and we are also going to be consistent in respect of the 5-year requirement for all councils to view that you have actually got a compliant swimming pool set-up, which I think will be very good. It will also then be giving the council a consistent approach in terms of response to enforcement—a notice of infringement first, and following up with the ultimate $500 or even $5,000 fine if it unnecessarily has to go to that level.

I am very supportive. I think this is good public policy. I am pleased to hear that we have got, from what it sounds like, pretty broad support from the House. I do look forward to the select committee processes Mr Simpson has outlined. I think we will get a lot of people from the community, and I will wait with interest to hear their views on what we have put forward, and I look forward to the process. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. The bill repeals the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and brings all pool fencing regulation under the Building Act 2004, as well as making some substantive changes to the existing rules. We hope that this will streamline the processes, reduce red tape, and make councils’ jobs easier for once. We hope it will reduce some of the costs on councils, rather than placing more costs on councils, which tends to be the wont of this House.

Specifically, under this bill, spa pools and hot tubs—and there are about 100,000 of those in New Zealand, apparently—will no longer need to be fenced in the same way that pools are. They will still need to have childproof covers, though, which are accepted as being very effective in preventing drownings, which is the core purpose, I would suspect, of any legislation in this area. Various councils currently allow spa pools to go unfenced, whereas others require fences. It would be good to resolve that inconsistency. On that principle—and I am seeing members of the Government nodding their head in response to that—I hope that they will be supporting my colleague Gareth Hughes’ solar power bill, which seeks to do the same thing in relation to solar power around the country. Obviously, that is something that is consistent with the National Party philosophy, so I am looking forward to that in the future. It is great to get that visual support today.

Another thing that the bill will do is ensure that all councils will inspect pools for access compliance every 5 years. Currently, again, it is a mixed bag—something that we want to change—with some councils inspecting every 3 years and others less frequently. The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment estimates that standardised 5-yearly testing will prevent—and this is possibly the most crucial part of this bill—up to six drownings over 10 years, and that, obviously, is something we would all want to support, I am sure.

Another aspect of the bill is that all retailers and manufacturers of spas, hot tubs, and portable pools will be required to inform buyers about their fencing obligations under the legislation, so that when you buy a spa pool you are told what kind of cover you need. It seems pretty straightforward and sensible policy-making. The prosecutions for not fencing a pool adequately will occur in only the most serious cases. Infringement notices and fines will be the most common punishment and will, hopefully and surely, ensure the same result—a behaviour change. The legislation will not apply for pools with less than 400 millimetres of water. Those types of pools, such as paddling or portable pools, are seen to be easy to empty and so will be empty for long periods of time, and, therefore, they should not require a fence or a designated cover. Again, it seems pretty sensible and clear-cut, and something we are happy to support.

I would like to note, though, that from 1993 to 2012 nine children drowned in spa pools in this country, and four drowned in portable pools, which also did include paddling pools, though I suspect, not knowing the details of that, that that may have had more to do with issues of supervision than the covers of the paddling pools. It was not clear in the evidence that we have whether those spas were fenced or fitted with covers.

We are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, and we are looking forward to hearing from Water Safety New Zealand and other experts in the area on what the real-world implications of this bill may be. The Government is saying that this bill will remove red tape and cut costs for pool owners and councils, and it is estimating that it will save $17 million, mostly from spa owners not having to fence their spas any more, and through the prescribed 5-year inspections rather than more regular inspections, and that this will save lives as well. So I guess the select committee will test those assertions, and we look forward to that discussion. Anything to reduce red tape for city councils and homeowners, with the goal of improving safety, is something the Greens are very happy to support.

I rise to take a short call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. There are a couple of things that we noted in our discussion in caucus about this bill. It is fair to say that at the outset, when the notion was first put up that the Government was contemplating relaxing the rules around fencing, there was a little bit of consternation, but as we got into the bill and had a good read we could see where the Government’s intentions seem to be focused, anyway.

Reducing the compliance burden imposed on pool owners and territorial authorities or councils gets a tick from the start point. It is a good thing if we can remove compliance. It is interesting that central government, Parliament, has a habit of passing legislation and then passing the problem of enacting, regulating, and managing that legislation on to local government, without any thought or consideration whatsoever as to the compliance costs it is foisting upon those local authorities and thereby upon the ratepayers. It is also a bit galling when the same Government runs around and criticises the councils for raising rates, without recognising the component that it contributes to it by burdening those councils with heavy compliance costs. So this move gets a tick right at the start.

I guess, of course, the key is maintaining child safety, and that is the area where New Zealand First will work with other colleagues at the Local Government and Environment Committee, with Scott Simpson as the chair. That is an area that we will be scrutinising.

With regard to the enactment of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, it was interesting to read the paper that said that the Act had contributed well to reducing the number of drownings of children aged zero to 4, from 100 in the 10 years before the Act was enacted, to 30 in the 10 years prior to 2012. I say it is interesting because that is, I would assume, against a backdrop of a vastly increased population and an increase in the number of swimming pools in homes.

I just put on the record that that figure, although it looks good—reducing from 100 to 30 over two 10-year snapshots; prior to enactment and post enactment—one needs to also consider the increase in the population from 1987 to 2012, which is quite substantial, and also look at the increase in the number of privately owned swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs.

We know that in certain electorates that support the National Party there are probably truckloads of those things. These guys have got money to burn and they enjoy a very luxurious lifestyle. But for the average New Zealander, maybe in places like—well, I will not name places. But in other suburbs around New Zealand you probably will not see a lot of hot tubs and spa pools around the back, beside the Mercedes or the BMW. But if one looks at the increase in the number of those tubs and swimming pools, we can see that that Act is actually an outstandingly successful piece of legislation, one would have to say.

Again, the focus will be on making these changes, sensible changes, without in any way degrading the standards of safety. Anything that addresses duplication, inconsistencies in legislation, and legislation that is cumbersome and onerous to manage has got to be a good thing and gets New Zealand First’s tick of approval at that point. So, again, we will work constructively to reduce duplication, inconsistency, and any cumbersome parts of the legislation, or the two pieces of legislation that have up until now been conflicting. Again, we will be focusing on the safety aspects, but we would say to the House that we will look to commit ourselves to working constructively on that committee in order to achieve those things.

Addressing outdated legislation that does not cater to changes in technology, to changes in manufacturing techniques, and to what has become the standard and the norm in the market sounds perfectly sensible to us. In terms of the safety design of covers these days, as relates to hot tubs and spa baths in Remuera, and so on, I guess, technology has moved on. Manufacturers have a different view these days. Child safety is paramount, we assume, in the eyes of companies that want their brands to be recognised as good brands, safe brands, and safe items to have for their families—hot tubs and pools that will not kill their children. As the design has advanced in some ways it clearly has made the legislation a little bit outdated. So tidying that up seems eminently sensible to us.

Looking through the other factors that the Government is saying we need to address, one is “clarifying that councils should inspect swimming pools 5-yearly …”. That is interesting. Let us see what Local Government New Zealand has to say about that. I am anticipating that it will give a nod of approval because, again, it reduces compliance costs. “Replacing the current offence provisions involving court proceedings with a more cost-effective graduated enforcement regime that includes prosecutable offences” seems worth considering as far as New Zealand First is concerned. “Relying on performance-based standards in the Building Code to specify the requirements for restricting access to pools, rather than the current duplicate and inconsistent requirements” again seems sensible to us. “Requiring retailers and manufacturers to inform buyers about their obligations under the Act when they buy spa pools, hot tubs, and portable pools, so as to encourage voluntary compliance …”—and so it goes on—is interesting.

It will be interesting to see the views of retailers and manufacturers. It is interesting that this Government in particular wants to push that responsibility back to the retailer, back to the business people, back to the manufacturer. So we will listen with interest to what those people have to say. I guess, on the other hand, in balancing that, I am anticipating that this will please Local Government New Zealand. So at the select committee we will no doubt have a bit of a conversation about the balancing act, about moving the compliance from Local Government New Zealand across to Business New Zealand. I have no doubt that Phil O’Reilly will turn up and say it is a bad thing and that the Government is passing on red tape and compliance to Business New Zealand.

We think this is a sensible conversation to have, and at the end of the day one could be forgiven for saying that if a manufacturer produces an item, it is its responsibility to ensure not only that the item, the hot tub, spa bath, or pool, is safe for consumers to use but that it is safe for them to sell and that they do carry some responsibility to advise the prospective buyer of their responsibilities as well.

So all in all we will support the legislation to go to the select committee. We will have that conversation at the select committee. It does appear to us that it does reduce compliance costs for councils, which is something that I am quite happy to support. Let us see where we go from there. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. In taking a brief call on first reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill, I would like to say that this is a very sensible bill. It brings in some much-needed reforms in reducing bureaucracy and in increasing consistency and the implementation of a regime that provides for the safety of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. But, in doing so, it does not compromise the provision of that safety.

This bill is not a silver bullet for the issue of water safety for young people. We know that of children in New Zealand who, tragically, drown, 80 percent are below the age of 2. So by keeping young people away from the source of this risk, we can do much to further increase the safety levels and to reduce the risk of that accidental drowning.

But I would like to acknowledge that there is a wider issue of water safety in New Zealand, and I would like to also acknowledge my colleague the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who has done so much to advocate for life jackets and water safety, particularly among his people in the Auckland region. But I would also like to acknowledge John Morrison, the former Wellington city councillor, who is on the board of Water Safety New Zealand and has done an enormous amount to raise money for Wellington ocean sports and for better safety training for people who go out boating casually through to those who may fish off rocks, for instance, or use our coastline for recreational purposes. So there is a wider piece, but this is an important and significant component of the wider water safety issue.

Just to give an example I know of, I used to work in the New Zealand embassy in Tehran, where the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, believe it or not, applied, or at least we sought to make sure that we adhered to New Zealand safety levels. We had a fence with razor wire round the embassy, but for the purposes of that piece of legislation, the swimming pool itself, which was also our water reservoir for emergency earthquake use, was not deemed to be properly fenced. Clearly, that was illogical, and so under this piece of legislation, where a barrier complies with the Building Act, it will be deemed to be sufficient to keep children out from the swimming pool area. That is very logical.

There are currently highly illogical cases where something certainly acts to keep children away from a swimming pool but does not meet the definition of a fence, so this modernisation is necessary. The original legislation dates from 1987. There are very few members of this House remaining here who were around in 1987, so this piece of legislation needs serious updating, and for that reason I am commending it for further consideration by the excellent Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.

I call Eugenie Sage—a 5-minute call.

E te Mana e te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te mema o te Whare Pāremata. I am pleased to take a short call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Jan Logie noted, the Green Party will be supporting this going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I could not believe it when I read in the regulatory impact statement that in the 10 years between 1972 and 1982, 100 children had died in home pools. It was obviously necessary to introduce the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, which this bill is replacing. As the regulatory impact statement also says, overall the Act is working well to reduce the risk of drowning. The number of children who, tragically, have drowned in pools in the 10 years from 2002 to 2012 was 30. That is obviously far too many, but is a substantial reduction in what it was before the legislation was introduced.

Although Scott Simpson, a speaker from the National Party, talked about the current Act as being frustrating and inconsistent, and called the bill sensible and pragmatic, the key test is where the balance is drawn between the vital need to protect our young children from drowning and compliance costs. The regulatory impact statement also says that compliance costs for councils are $3.5 million annually. Yes, we want effective legislation that is easy to administer, but protecting our children from the very real threat that home swimming pools provide is vitally important.

That is why the Green Party is supporting this bill going to the select committee, because we are very interested in the submissions from people like Water Safety New Zealand, from swimming pool owners, from Plunket, from Starship, and from others about what the impact of some of these changes will be. Because with things like hot tubs and spa pools—certainly, in other jurisdictions overseas, they exempt spa pools from fencing if they have got child-resistant covers. There was certainly strong support in the public submissions on the discussion documents for these to be exempt from fencing, but organisations like Water Safety New Zealand want spa pools and hot tubs to be subject to monitoring by councils, and that is because when the council officers go out to do an inspection, they engage with the homeowner. They are able to remind them of the risk that these hot tubs can provide when the covers are off. So that is why we are supporting the bill going to select committee. I think there will be quite a number of submissions around this issue of hot tubs and spa pools and whether they should be subject to an inspection regime.

Other parts of the bill, in terms of making it clear that the fencing requirements do not apply to things like stormwater hazards or where you have got swale drains to garden ponds, I think will be an improvement. In Rolleston, for example, where there is an effort to improve stormwater quality, so there are large swale ponds that are used to help filter stormwater—they are immediately adjacent to houses. The council was wondering whether they should be fenced. And so I will be very interested in submissions from councils, presumably in support of the clarification of the law around these swale drains and garden ponds.

But it is a question of making sure that, in the Government’s drive to reduce compliance costs for councils and swimming pool owners, we are not undermining the very important and effective provisions in the current legislation that have significantly reduced the number of child drownings. I think 92 percent of the children who have drowned in a pool have drowned at home or in the pool of someone whose place they have been invited to. Of those drownings, 65 percent have occurred while their caregivers have been inside, and 80 percent of the drownings were of children who were 2 years old or younger. It is often in a momentary lapse in supervision that those drowning have occurred.

There are important provisions in this bill in terms of where doors are located and whether they are to be self-closing—the changes there, which we will look at very closely because they contribute, at the moment, to reducing drownings. So it is the balance between compliance costs but, overall, ensuring the safety of our youngest citizens. Thank you.

I too would like to join both my colleagues the honourable Ron Mark and Eugenie Sage and emphasise a point that I think is very significant in this particular debate. Although the Labour Party will be supporting this bill for select committee consideration, I think it is important for this House to take on board that we need to have a responsible discussion about this. Therefore, I would just caution some of the members of the Government who seem to take a gung-ho attitude, and think that somehow amending the 1987 legislation is going to save lives. I would just caution that, yes, legislation does play a part, but, ultimately, if we are wanting to ensure the safety of children, it is about people and the decisions that they make, and being vigilant about how the legislation is implemented.

I say that because the purpose of the legislation is twofold: one, it is aimed at reducing compliance costs and, two, it is about ensuring child safety. When you consider those two aims, it almost seems like you have got to have one or the other, because the question is: what is the nice-to-have and what is the must-have? The suggestion by some speakers from the Government is that somehow the old legislation did not provide for child safety, and yet my colleagues who have spoken before me have identified that safety was achieved by the old legislation. So let us just be quite clear that the old legislation did work—it did save lives.

Therefore, we have got to ask ourselves how the new legislation is going to ensure the safety of children. That has got to be paramount, because if we are asking what is a nice-to-have and what is a must-have, I would say that a nice-to-have is the reduction of compliance costs, but a must-have is child safety. That is first and foremost. The other thing I want to raise is that although the bill outlines some significant aims to be achieved, such as the provision that child-resistant covers will be deemed an adequate means of restricting access to spa pools, I think that we have we have got to have a responsible discussion about that. The Government, I know, loves to put up the argument that legislative change has to be evidence-based. Well, let us look at what evidence there is that will support the argument that child-resistant covers do save lives.

The bill says that councils will be required to inspect pools every 5 years. Again, we have been told that inspection on a regular, 5-yearly basis is important and is going to save lives. Let us have a look at that in the select committee. We are told also that retailers and manufacturers will be required to inform buyers about their obligations. I am not sure whether this legislation actually compels retailers. I think the regulatory impact statement suggests that it is merely encouraging that voluntary compliance. Again, we have got to look at whether that is going to save lives. The performance-based standards in the building code will be used to specify fencing requirements. Let us look at that to see whether it will save lives. The final one is that non-residential pools, such as public school pools and hospital pools, will be exempt from the new legislation. Let us consider how that is going to save lives.

I do want to also make another point, and that is that in points that have been outlined that the legislation covers, the one area that I think the legislation ought to cover but does not is the supervision of children by parents. I will tell you why. My youngest son learnt to swim at 4 years of age, and by 5 he was quite adventurous. One time he dove into the deeper end of a pool and because he was such a short person he used his feet to push himself once he got to the bottom, but he was not strong enough to push himself all the way to the top. Luckily, we were there by the pool watching him and cheering him on, until we realised that he could not come up on his own, so we dove in. So I often observe in public arenas and also in private arenas that it is important that if children are around water, there has to be parental supervision.

I also want to make the point about safety. Many of us do not realise how important safety is, and just how real it is that a child can drown in a puddle, and I have been advised so. But the final point just to emphasise the safety issue is that not too long ago, I think earlier this week, there was a news item about an elderly couple—and my condolences go to the family—who had both drowned in a bath-tub. I raise this only to emphasise that we often do not realise what will happen around water, but if we are going to be talking about safety then that has to be paramount, rather than the reduction of compliance costs. Thank you.

I call David Shearer.

I was actually anticipating another National Party person speaking—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: So was I.

—but I just wanted to say a few words on this bill because I think it raises some issues that have been addressed by our colleagues there and those are around the actual bill. I want to mention a few of those things, but I also want to mention some of the broader context of what is happening in New Zealand as well.

First of all, as has been said up to now, the original legislation has had a profound effect on the number of people who have drowned in swimming pools—it was about 10 per year, and is now down to about three per year—and, as has been pointed out, at the same time there has been an increase in our population and an increase in the number of pools that are available. So, in a sense, it has had a very good impact on safety for small children, and this bill will certainly decrease the compliance costs at the same time as not affecting the safety requirements that we all expect.

It will also mean that we will be looking at pools and the fencing of pools as to their performance and the way that they are able to protect kids, as well as ensuring that there are regular checks by councils. So it reduces compliance costs, it helps councils to make sure that those pools are fenced properly, and, at the same time, it does not diminish any safety procedures.

But there is a bigger issue, and I think that this debate falls in it as well, and it is that as we move into spring and into summer and we are looking forward to spending more time at the beach, we should reflect on our appalling drowning record in New Zealand. We have one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of drownings in the Western World.

Perhaps some people might say: “Well, that’s understandable.” We have got a very long coastline—11,000 kilometres of coastline—we have got 500,000 kilometres of rivers, and we have got more than 4,000 lakes. That is a lot of water, and a lot of people recreating around that water as well. But surely that means we have a responsibility as a society and as a community to make sure that our kids know how to swim well.

Last year we had 105 drownings in New Zealand—as I said, one of the worst rates in the Western World—and this year already we have had 18 people drown in January, which was double what it was in January of the previous year. There were 18 drownings in January—double what it was in January of the previous year—and already, in the first 6 months of this year, 61 people have drowned, which is a 30 percent increase on what it was the year before. So the trends are all bad. The trends for drowning in New Zealand are all bad, and that is likely to get worse.

I want to put forward one of the reasons why they are likely to get worse. When I grew up as a kid, our local school had a swimming pool, and we all went to swimming lessons 3 days a week. Sometimes it was cold, but we had to have an excuse note if we were not going to swim that day—some medical reason, or whatever. There was a huge push for all schools to teach swimming in schools, and that is now going backwards. We are ending up going in the opposite direction.

In the last few years since 2008, 156 schools that we know of—and there may well be more—have closed their swimming pools. That is an extraordinary indictment on where our emphasis is on teaching good water safety. Water Safety New Zealand reports that another 130 schools, in addition to that 156, have got in contact with it to ask whether there is any way that it is possible to keep their schools’ pools open. Add those two figures together, and it is close to 300 schools in just the last 6 or 7 years that have had to close, are about to close, or have threatened to close their swimming pools.

What that means is that a generation of New Zealanders are growing up in New Zealand without the fundamental water safety that we—and, certainly, I—took for granted when we were growing up in New Zealand, and that is because the Government is not putting in the resources and it is not paying the proper regard to water safety that it should. It is focusing on national standards and on reading and arithmetic, and anything else that it considers important—nobody is denying that—but what that has meant is that schools do not have the resources to make sure that their school pool stays open.

Right now, schools get about $700 a year in order to make sure that their school pools are up to standard. That does not even pay for the chemicals, let alone the general maintenance. Many of these pools are getting older and, as a result, they do need maintenance, and schools are unable to ensure that those pools stay open.

So next week, as I understand it, Jonathan Coleman, the Minister for Sport and Recreation, is going to be announcing a water safety campaign. If it does not address the issue of schools losing their pools and an entire generation of New Zealanders not being able to do the basic swimming strokes and being able to survive in the water, it will be a failure. So I certainly hope that next week we get to hear from this Government that it is serious about water safety, it is serious about teaching our kids to swim, it recognises that schools have an important role, and it gets in behind schools and makes sure that they have the pools and they have got the backing to ensure that they can run an effective school swimming programme, as they should, and as we have done for a number of generations. We have always put a priority—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

—on children’s swimming safety, and that is what we need to be doing right now.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was not closing the member down, just reminding him that there is a bill to speak to. So if he would like to confine his last 2 minutes to that, that would be appreciated.

I will come back to the bill because the bill says that it wants to reduce the number of people who are drowning, and we have to see that in the broader context of the increased number of people who are drowning in New Zealand. We have made some inroads in fencing off pools, but we are missing the bigger picture, which is that kids and a whole generation is out there unable to swim because of the negligence of this Government.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

The House adjourned at 11.45 a.m. (Thursday)