Mark Ron: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6780. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): 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.