Turei MetiriaMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party is opposing this legislation. All of the advice that the Local Government and Environment Committee received from everyone involved in child safety and child health—from paediatricians to Starship Hospital from doctors to families whose children have died from drowning as well as the information received about the effects of near-drowning on children and the significant brain injury that occurred—all said that this bill would cause more harm to New Zealand children and that it would put them at much greater risk of drowning or near-drowning. The justification given by the officials and therefore by the Minister for Building and Housing was that it is more important for there to be some cost savings on behalf of local government than it is for the lives of children to be protected through good quality rules around the fencing of swimming pools. As we know the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act has actually saved a number of lives over the many years it has been in place and this bill is a degradation of that legislation and it increases risk to children. It is expected that more children will drown as a result of this legislation passing through the House.One of the major issues that was raised by child health advocates—doctors paediatricians and similar organisations—was that the rules will essentially remove the requirement for childproof fencing around four sides of the pool. It will allow for other kinds of barriers that will be subject to different kinds of looser criteria to be used around pools but not the fencing—the fencing that as we know has actually saved children's lives. My Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) will reinstate the requirement for four-sided fencing. I do not doubt that others will disagree with that but I make no apology for putting the lives of children ahead of the need to save some costs for some local councils. Actually children's lives are worth much more than that. We should be enacting law in this House that protects children and improves their safety and this SOP will do that by requiring four-sided fencing around swimming pools.The other changes that this SOP makes are to the requirement about the use of a building as part of fencing. You could argue in some circumstances that the side of a building could be used as a fence because it would restrict access. This bill makes it much easier for the side of a building that has a door or building through which a child can access a pool to be classed as a legitimate barrier for those swimming pools. As we know we can have alarms and we can have automatic latches—we can have all of these things—but we all know how people live in the summer in this country when the weather is good. Doors and windows are wide open people are doing things there are lots and lots and lots of kids around and if you have a swimming pool there will be lots and lots of kids playing in the swimming pool. We know how wonderful it is for those kids to be able to play in the pool.There is no guarantee and there is no regulation that we can put in place to ensure that the doors and windows that open on to a pool area will be kept closed and child safe. There is absolutely no mechanism in the regulation that we can put in place that will ensure that children do not get access to a pool area through a door or a window from the house out to the pool area. Do we believe that children's safety is paramount? Do we think that it is better for the law to be clear to be simple and to be effective? Because if we did in favour of child safety then this Committee would support my SOP which would prevent the side of a building that is against the immediate area of a pool from having any kind of window or door in it. If you have a window or door you do not have a child-safe barrier to that pool area. Parents will leave the windows and doors open if it is warm. Older kids will leave the windows and doors open because they are just kids and they cannot be expected to be held responsible. Little kids—babies—will make their way through those windows and doors and into the pool area and they will be at serious risk of drowning.We know that that is a risk. We know that there have been examples of children accessing pool areas through windows and doors. We know that there are circumstances where children have drowned and many many more have suffered the effects of near-drowning as a result of accessing a pool through an open door or window. We also know that even with fences the fence latches that are designed for the purpose of being childproof are often left open by adults or by older children in the area so that younger children who are not properly supervised have access to those pools and can drown. Why would we allow for an additional risk by saying that it is OK to have the side of a building as part of the barrier if it has got a door or a window in it? We know that there is a risk. We know what the practices are of families in the summer months. Why would we increase the risk of those families having their children drown?Let us be responsible legislators. Let us put children's safety and children's well-being at the heart of the decisions that we make and let us make sure that this law will protect children from drowning and injury. I urge this Committee to support my SOP if you believe that putting children at the heart of policy is the most important thing we can be doing because children will drown as a result of this legislation passing as it is. Thank you.