Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to address the issue of why the Local Government and Environment Committee thought that 3-yearly inspections were necessary rather than 5-yearly inspections. It is an issue that I know vexes at least some voters out there because I know that my office has had a repeated exchange of correspondence with someone who was somewhat offended that the select committee—and I see members from the National Party are probably in receipt of assiduous representations from the same person who was somewhat annoyed that select committee members were influenced by advice that was given to us by Auckland Council. The council which does inspect 3-yearly said to us that already some 65 percent of pools are found to be uncompliant when inspected within the 3-year period with the presumption being that if they were inspected less regularly—if it was 5 years for example—the number of pools that are non-compliant would be even higher. Therefore the select committee was convinced that there should be a 3-yearly inspection rather than a 5-yearly inspection and we thought that we should make it clear that all councils had to do that 3-yearly inspection because there was some variation in practice around the country. I have to say that the person who has been contacting my office to complain about that has not provided any other better evidence that I have been able to think would trump the evidence that we were given at the select committee by the Auckland Council. Given that the councillors live in a city that they think is warm enough to have a lot of pools—although as a visitor to Auckland I struggle with that reputation at least for the last few months when you have not needed a pool; you just need a bucket and it catches plenty of rain—I was convinced at the select committee that 3 years was the appropriate point. Metiria Turei's amendment—as I understand it Metiria and I have not read the detail of the wording—but from your concerns at the select committee am I to take it that this is the use of natural barriers? Metiria Turei: Natural barriers and the ability to use a wall that has a door or a window.Hon DAVID PARKER: Right. Yes. Well I do not share Metiria Turei's view on this and I respect Metiria Turei as an MP. I accept that you are well-meaning in respect of this Supplementary Order Paper 216 but if the purpose of a barrier is to stop children being able to get into a pool and be drowned it does not concern me whether that barrier is a natural barrier a wall or a fence so long as the effect of it is the same and that is to stop children drowning. So I am actually in favour of the amendment that is proposed in that regard by this bill to say that rather than necessarily having to have a fence at the top of a cliff a cliff will do if a child cannot climb up the cliff and into the pool because the child is still not going to drown. That is why I do not support that particular Supplementary Order Paper 216. I was convinced by the advice from officials to the Local Government and Environment Committee that as drafted we were protecting children from drowning because those natural barriers in those situations are just as effective as a fence. I think that is probably the only thing I have to say at this time.