Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): The Green Party opposes the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. The Minister for Building and Housing in his speech at the start of the third reading claimed that the main deficiency in the law around swimming pools was compliance and he claimed that this bill would fix that by the requirement to inspect every 3 years. That is more mythmaking by Nick Smith. It is not law changes that promote compliance but resources that agencies put into actually undertaking the compliance and then following up when they find that the law has not been complied with.The fact that 30 of some 67 councils have no periodic inspections was probably down to limited resources that those councils had rather than a defect in the law. It was spin by the Minister to disguise the fact that the bill is removing the clear focus that the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act the existing Act has and has had for the last 30 years on protecting children from drowning and near drowning. It was spin because we know that the motivation behind this bill which repeals the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has been to save money and to reduce compliance costs for pool owners rather than to reduce the risk of harm and injury to children when they are around swimming pools.But I guess it is not surprising that we have that as the Government's ambition because of course this is the Government that will not even have a target for reducing child poverty which rejected the suggestions of the Children's Commissioner about setting a target and which seems to ignore the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals where there is a target to eliminate poverty in all its forms. So if we have a Government that is quite happy to have a target for getting rid of predators but not one for reducing child poverty it is hardly surprising that in this bill the emphasis is on reducing compliance cost rather than protecting children from drowning.The Minister also claimed that the bill was about ensuring that regulations around pool fencing were incorporated into the Building Act. But if you read the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act—the existing Act—you already have good linkages with the Building Act. Pool safety requirements were included in the new building code back in 1992 and there is a standard around this from 2006. So that justification fails as well. The best testament to the fact that the existing law—the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act—is working has been the major reduction in child drownings since the Act was passed in 1987. We had here in New Zealand a truly awful record—in terms of child drownings—during the 1970s and 1980s. As the number of home swimming pools increased we had in the worst year—1981—17 children drowning in home pools and that of course led to the campaign that resulted in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. Now as a result of that Act—30 years later—we have had the number of drownings for the under-fives dropping from an average of 10 a year to 3. If it is not broken why meddle with it?Many of the submitters—and they were highly respected submitters from paediatric health Starship Water Safety New Zealand Plunket—highlighted the success of the existing law. As the trauma coordinator at Starship in Auckland said it is one of the most effective child safety laws ever so why tamper with it? The Auckland Regional Public Health Service suggested that the lives of over 200 children have been saved by the current law and at least as many children have avoided permanent serious brain injury from a near-drowning. So we in the Green Party are opposing this bill. Yes there have been changes through select committee that have made some improvements—but they have also complicated the legislation as well.The major concern that the Green Party has is that by repealing the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and leaving it to the Building Act and the performance-based system under the Building Act—which of course led to leaky buildings—we have got much less certainty around what constitutes a fence and an adequate barrier around swimming pools to protect them from young children. Certainly there is a schedule in this bill which sets out a standard for swimming pool fencing and it does include some specific design details. But what it also allows in the bill is for pool owners to apply to local authorities for a waiver to set in place there and for local authorities to grant those waivers—they can grant them if there are no significant risks to children.We think that that provides far too much uncertainty and far too much flexibility for councils to not have robust fencing around pools. It will lead to a lot of debate about what constitutes an adequate barrier" between pool owners wanting to put in place fancy landscaping and the local council. So we are losing that clear focus that we have in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and the very clear prescription around how fences should be constructed what height they should be and the clearance between the ground and the fence that ensures that everyone is certain that children do not get access to pools.One of the other reasons the Green Party is opposing the bill is because it uses the term "physical barrier" rather than "fence" and that again creates more uncertainty and flexibility in terms of councils. We are really disappointed that in the Committee stage the Government rejected Jacinda Ardern's Supplementary Order Paper 208 around alarming which would have seen a strengthening of the bill by making sure that there were much more robust provisions there; and that the Government rejected Metiria Turei's Supplementary Order Paper 213 which drew on Australian research about the importance of four-sided fencing that isolates children from the pool; and that the bill potentially permits dwellings that have openings to poolside and does not require enough rigour around those doors that can open to a poolside. We should be following the Australian example and ensuring that we have four-sided fencing.A lot of the organisations that made submissions were very compelling in advocating the benefits of the current law and the problems that this bill will create. We do not want to be in the position of saying "We told you so." We do want the Government to look at this legislation very very carefully. If there is a single increase in the drowning figures the Act should come back to Parliament. This Parliament should not be in the business of passing legislation that harms people and this bill by repealing the current law which has been such a success in protecting young children from drowning is at very real risk of doing that. That is why the Green Party is opposing the bill."