Sio William: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6784. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I too would like to join both my colleagues the honourable Ron Mark and Eugenie Sage and emphasise a point that I think is very significant in this particular debate. Although the Labour Party will be supporting this bill for select committee consideration I think it is important for this House to take on board that we need to have a responsible discussion about this. Therefore I would just caution some of the members of the Government who seem to take a gung-ho attitude and think that somehow amending the 1987 legislation is going to save lives. I would just caution that yes legislation does play a part but ultimately if we are wanting to ensure the safety of children it is about people and the decisions that they make and being vigilant about how the legislation is implemented.I say that because the purpose of the legislation is twofold: one it is aimed at reducing compliance costs and two it is about ensuring child safety. When you consider those two aims it almost seems like you have got to have one or the other because the question is: what is the nice-to-have and what is the must-have? The suggestion by some speakers from the Government is that somehow the old legislation did not provide for child safety and yet my colleagues who have spoken before me have identified that safety was achieved by the old legislation. So let us just be quite clear that the old legislation did work—it did save lives.Therefore we have got to ask ourselves how the new legislation is going to ensure the safety of children. That has got to be paramount because if we are asking what is a nice-to-have and what is a must-have I would say that a nice-to-have is the reduction of compliance costs but a must-have is child safety. That is first and foremost. The other thing I want to raise is that although the bill outlines some significant aims to be achieved such as the provision that child-resistant covers will be deemed an adequate means of restricting access to spa pools I think that we have we have got to have a responsible discussion about that. The Government I know loves to put up the argument that legislative change has to be evidence-based. Well let us look at what evidence there is that will support the argument that child-resistant covers do save lives.The bill says that councils will be required to inspect pools every 5 years. Again we have been told that inspection on a regular 5-yearly basis is important and is going to save lives. Let us have a look at that in the select committee. We are told also that retailers and manufacturers will be required to inform buyers about their obligations. I am not sure whether this legislation actually compels retailers. I think the regulatory impact statement suggests that it is merely encouraging that voluntary compliance. Again we have got to look at whether that is going to save lives. The performance-based standards in the building code will be used to specify fencing requirements. Let us look at that to see whether it will save lives. The final one is that non-residential pools such as public school pools and hospital pools will be exempt from the new legislation. Let us consider how that is going to save lives.I do want to also make another point and that is that in points that have been outlined that the legislation covers the one area that I think the legislation ought to cover but does not is the supervision of children by parents. I will tell you why. My youngest son learnt to swim at 4 years of age and by 5 he was quite adventurous. One time he dove into the deeper end of a pool and because he was such a short person he used his feet to push himself once he got to the bottom but he was not strong enough to push himself all the way to the top. Luckily we were there by the pool watching him and cheering him on until we realised that he could not come up on his own so we dove in. So I often observe in public arenas and also in private arenas that it is important that if children are around water there has to be parental supervision.I also want to make the point about safety. Many of us do not realise how important safety is and just how real it is that a child can drown in a puddle and I have been advised so. But the final point just to emphasise the safety issue is that not too long ago I think earlier this week there was a news item about an elderly couple—and my condolences go to the family—who had both drowned in a bath-tub. I raise this only to emphasise that we often do not realise what will happen around water but if we are going to be talking about safety then that has to be paramount rather than the reduction of compliance costs. Thank you.