Shearer DavidDAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I think we have some agreement on the need for good legislation for swimming pool fencing and protection. We have heard of the statistics from both before and after the 1987 Fencing of Swimming Pools Act came through when drownings basically dropped from 10 a year down to about three. It was a remarkable piece of legislation in terms of saving lives. We heard from submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee that for every death that occurs there are about nine children who are seriously injured by near-drowning which can cause brain damage and all sorts of other damage—through both the considerable cost to the families but also obviously through a financial cost to the State as well.This bill moved closer to where Labour wanted it to be and to where it felt it could support it but it never quite got there. It was legislation that was originally looked at by Shane Jones when he was in Government. He was looking at it though in terms of how to enhance the safety of children around swimming pools at the same time as looking at compliance costs—but strictly in that order. First of all he was looking at safety; secondly he was looking at the reduction of compliance costs. What we had when Nick Smith took over this bill was the primary focus was very much on reducing compliance costs. What I think we have done here is weakened the strength of the 1987 legislation in terms of protecting child safety.We wanted to see a number of changes in this bill particularly those in the Supplementary Order Paper that Jacinda Ardern put up which was Supplementary Order Paper 208. That called for the physical closing of doors between a house and a swimming pool not just an alarm—an alarm where somebody has gone away somewhere where there is music on loud the alarm is faulty or whatever and the alarm is not heard—but a physical barrier to stop children from being able to get to a body of water where they might drown. That was I believe a very sensible pragmatic and lifesaving measure. I disagree with the previous speaker Paul Foster-Bell who talked about that being somehow modern technology and about how alarms are just as good. I do not believe that that is true. I do believe that a physical self-latching door is very important for stopping young children from walking out into say a patio area and falling into a swimming pool. An alarm cannot achieve the same aim as that.I think that for us probably one of the most overwhelmingly persuasive points was the range of highly considered and very reputable people who came before the select committee—people from Watersafe Auckland the Auckland Regional Public Health Service the Paediatrics Society of New Zealand Starship Children's Health—all people who have been working on the front line with child death through drowning or child injury through drowning. All of them said: Please do not put this legislation through as it stands because it will weaken what we have at the moment and as a result of that we will have more drownings." Unfortunately the Government has not gone far enough in meeting those needs. It has gone some way and I will say that we now have a better regulatory regime in place which is that councils will be obliged to check pools and the fencing of pools every 3 years. It is very interesting to note that when councils looked at the ability of homeowners to comply with the regulations only about one-third of the people they visited were compliant. It will definitely make a difference—ensuring that homeowners will in fact be doing that.Mr Deputy Speaker have I got only 5 minutes? Is it a split call?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on a 5-minute call so you have got about 3 seconds left.DAVID SHEARER: 3 seconds. Ha ha! For those reasons we will not be supporting this bill. We appreciate that the bill has moved somewhat but it is still not adequate as far as protecting the lives of children is concerned.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Jan Logie—a 5-minute call."