O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support this bill because we think it does put child safety first. It does that in a way that we believe is practical and sensible to ensure that as far as is reasonably possible the child safety objective will be fulfilled. For example the provision for effective physical barriers other than fences which will now include for example cliffs will continue to be acceptable. I have to disagree somewhat with what the last speaker Eugenie Sage said about that because I believe that there are certainly good examples of perfectly adequate physical barriers other than fences that would serve just as well as a means of protecting children. Similarly water bodies not used for swimming such as garden ornamental pools which were caught in many cases under the current law will not now be caught under this bill. So we think this bill does make some fairly sensible changes and does not actually compromise the child safety objective at all. The key changes that are made concerning child-resistant covers are also quite welcome. These were deemed to be inadequate as a means of restricting access to spa pools and hot tubs in the current legislation but as we all know the design of these pool covers which we are now going to call small heated-pool covers have improved and have improved a great deal in terms of providing a perfectly secure means of providing protection and safety for children provided they are locked. So the pools with covers that comply with the Building Act as they will be required to do will also not need to be fenced as well as have a safe and effective locked cover—that is quite sensible—nor will a building consent be required. The reality that we learnt is that 96 percent of such pools are not actually fenced now so when they are not in use and have effective covers it is perfectly clear to us that there is no need for the bill to treat them in the same way as swimming pools. Those covers should be perfectly adequate provided they are locked when not in use. We in New Zealand First particularly like the fact that retailers and manufacturers are now going to be required to inform buyers in writing about their obligations under the Act when they buy pool products designed for swimming wading paddling or bathing. We like it that they will be required to provide the purchaser with specified information as to how to maintain and keep the pool secure so they will become not just a purchaser but also a minder of the pool that they have purchased. They are going to be required to accept responsibility in these ways for keeping the pool safe and keeping children away from any accident that might occur. We think that is a good way to assist in the vital need to inform and educate pool owners. I cannot emphasise enough that if we are really serious about ensuring safety for children as far as pools and the like are concerned then you cannot do better than see that people who have those pools and operate them are well educated and realise what their responsibilities are. We also approve of the new provision to make the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment responsible to enforce this because we do not think it would be practicable at all to ask local councils to do so but of course they will still have to enforce pool barrier requirements. I would have to say about that that I do think that councils need to lift their game somewhat in that area. Some are very very good at carrying out those responsibilities but it is quite clear to us that some could do a lot better. I hope that those who have not put the effort in that they should will now take another look at this and lift their game as I have said. New section 67A inserted by clause 6C is also very welcome. It allows for waivers and modifications to pool barrier requirements where circumstances relating to a particular pool make it acceptable and provided that there will be no danger to children. For those reasons I would again have to disagree with the Greens' position on that because provided that that is the case that the councils concerned ensure that there will not be any danger to children arising from a consent or modification then I do not see why there should be a problem. I do not see that there would be any uncertainty or that such pools with such modifications should be any less safe than any other. You do have to place some trust and some confidence in local councils and their officials to be able to carry out those kinds of responsibilities effectively and responsibly. We in New Zealand First think they can do that provided as I have already said they do lift their game and take these responsibilities seriously. We think that they can and they will. We similarly approve of the new definition of pool operator" in clause 5 so that it is perfectly clear who it is that has the responsibility. Looking at standardisation—standardisation in terms of how the territorial authorities exercise their duties and responsibilities in respect of inspecting and certifying residential pools is of very high importance. This is actually the crux of the whole thing. So having consistent standardised regular compliance processes across the country is nothing less than just plain common sense and that is what the bill does. It achieves this with a nationwide standard residential pool inspection cycle requiring mandatory 3-year inspections. Currently for example under the current Act an owner of two properties that may be in different districts may well have pools in these two locations with quite different requirements for compliance. That does not make very much sense and it does not help in achieving the child safety objective. Consistency as far as these things are concerned does help that objective because it means less confusion and less uncertainty. We think the bill goes some distance towards fixing that issue and the additional cost for that new regime which will be quite substantial will be well worth the money if even one child is prevented from drowning as a result. So I do not agree that really the bill is aimed just at saving costs. I think it is aimed at improving safety and we do see that most particularly in the standardisation provisions. The bill also introduces a graduated enforcement regime with infringement notices as the preferred tool for compliance and court prosecutions only for serious breaches. I think that is the way to go. We are not trying to make criminals out of people who perhaps need to do better as far as these requirements are concerned; we just need to make sure that they understand their responsibilities and why they need to take the actions that are required of them. Infringement notices will achieve that but of course where somebody persistently does not do what they are required to do then obviously you have to take the further step of a prosecution. But I think that is a good way to go and in concert with the better provisions for education and notice to purchasers that is a good way to make sure that people comply with the provisions in the Act. So overall New Zealand First accepts that with all those changes that have been made which we think are sensible the bill will provide a balanced approach and one that will provide for safety for children and that will be better than the current legislation provides for and it will do so in a practical effective and common-sense way. So for those reasons as I have said New Zealand First is actually quite happy to continue to support this bill. We think it is a bill that needs to be passed."