Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Swimming pools are a source of a huge amount of enjoyment for New Zealanders. They are about healthy exercise. They are about Kiwi families learning to get those water skills to be able to ensure that they are safe, whether they go to the beach, or whether they have a swim in one of New Zealand’s many rivers and lakes. But those same swimming pools also pose a serious risk, particularly for toddlers and small children, and the challenge for Parliament with this bill is to get that healthy balance for New Zealanders to be able to have swimming pools, to be able to have that enjoyment, but also to ensure that we minimise the risk for our young children.

The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act of 1987 has been very effective in significantly reducing and preventing drownings of young children in swimming pools across New Zealand. However, that law, now 30 years old, is in need of review and some change because there are gaps in the way in which it is working, which is compromising the safety of children. Equally so, there are some provisions that are cumbersome and impose excessive costs on families and other organisations with swimming pools. The bill introduces a more consistent and practical approach to protecting children from drowning. The current bill will not only save more young lives but also reduce some of those compliance costs.

The major changes in the bill are, firstly, around the issue of inspection. What we know from 30 years’ history of the current law is that although a swimming pool may be compliant on the day that it was built, afterwards—whether it is that trees grow, the fence wears out, the gate’s closing devices no longer work—it may not be. Today that is the principal risk to children. Some of our councils do inspect pools regularly; others do not. What we are proposing through this bill is a nationwide requirement that all pools be regularly inspected, and my officials estimate that that will result in six fewer drownings of young children per decade.

The other issue that is addressed in this bill, and is an important change, is in respect of spa pools and hot tubs that have child-resistant covers. In the current law, they are required to be fenced. My advice from officials is that councils, effectively, turned a blind eye to that law. Neither do we actually think that when there is a safety cover—that child-resistant cover—that there is a justification for also requiring a fence. I am advised by officials that in over 10 years there has been one drowning of a child under 5 in a spa pool. Actually, there were more drownings in baths, and, obviously, we do not require the standard Kiwi family bath to be fenced. That is why this bill takes the view that the safety covers, properly installed and properly inspected, are the right way forward. If we actually enforced the existing law, there would be a cost of $300 million for those people who owned spa pools and those hot tubs. Quite clearly, that cannot be justified.

I do want to acknowledge the considerable work that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done. I particularly want to acknowledge the chair, Scott Simpson, and the other members for the work that they have done in refining this bill and reporting it back to Parliament. They have carefully considered the concerns that have been raised by submitters and are trying to get those improvements in child safety as well as that practical approach to compliance.

I also want to acknowledge the large number of submitters—183 written, 32 oral. Clearly, people view swimming pool safety and, more broadly, water safety as an important issue for New Zealand.

Since this bill was introduced last September, the committee has made a number of changes. Most of these changes have been technical in nature, but there are two significant changes that have been made around the issues of the periodic residential pool inspection regime. Most submitters on the bill were in favour of the mandatory inspection regime, but there was considerable debate between those who favoured the original provision in the bill, which was for 5-yearly inspections, and those who preferred 3-yearly inspections. I support the deliberations of those select committee members who, on balance, decided that the period should be 3 years.

There was some debate as to whether councils should have discretion. I actually think there is an advantage in having a consistent approach across New Zealand. For many of those people who are orientated in swimming pools, there are a number of different councils, and, in my view, the level of risk across different parts of the country does not really justify a different period between inspections.

Another change to the bill relates to who carries out those pool inspections. The bill as introduced would allow for only council staff to carry out those mandatory periodic inspections of pool fences. The bill as it has been reported back would allow for independently qualified pool inspections, and, in my view, this is more consistent with the general approach of the Building Act. Many people would not be aware that, actually, things like lifts have to be regularly inspected to ensure that they are safe. We do not require councils to have to do that. It has to be done by independent, appropriately qualified persons. Equally so, one of the biggest risks from buildings is, of course, the risk of fire. Again, in that area, those inspections are done and certified by people who are appropriately qualified, and in my view that is a sensible approach.

I would also note that many of the councils that currently do not have an inspection system are our smaller councils, so, as a consequence, it would make sense, and there would not be sufficient work in some of our smaller authorities like Kaikōura or some councils on the West Coast to have a pool inspection regime, and having a provision for providing for independent, appropriately qualified people will make this law more practical for those smaller authorities.

A number of submitters commented that using the performance-based approach of the building code for means of restricting access to residential pools, as proposed in the bill, rather than having a more prescriptive standard, would, in their view, actually reduce pool safety. These submitters also indicated that pools should have a fence rather than a physical barrier. My view is that the preoccupation with fencing is not sensible. There are properties around New Zealand where, for instance, a pool is located adjacent to a 20-metre high cliff, and to require the property owner to install a fence in that situation, where there is quite clearly a barrier that would prevent any young child getting access to the pool—this is a more sensible approach. It is consistent with the broader approach that is applied in the Building Act. It is also consistent with the standards that have been developed around physical barriers.

A number of submitters also expressed concern about doors being used as part of the pool barrier. I am advised that there are about 100,000 pools across New Zealand where having a door that requires automatic closing actually does apply now. The requirement, as some have wanted, to have four-sided fences for all pools is, in our view, not a practical approach across every property, of which there is a varied approach.

So, in summary, this bill will reduce unnecessary compliance costs and frustrations, particularly around the issue of spa pools and hot tubs that have child-resistant covers, which will not have to be separately fenced. In addition, because of the regular, mandatory 3-yearly inspection regime, this is a bill that will save young lives. I know the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have carefully and thoroughly considered the submissions received on the bill. I again thank them for their work. It is a better bill through their endeavours, and I commend this bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. By my count, the next speaker will get less than a minute before they are interrupted, so I therefore seek leave for the House to now adjourn.

Is there any objection to that course of action? As I said on one previous occasion, there is no one that foolish.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.