Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): When this bill first came to the House I raised some concerns and the concerns emanated from the stated purpose of this bill. The stated purpose of this bill and I will read it is as follows: will amend the Building Act 2004 and repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987"—but here is what I want to emphasise—"to reduce the compliance burden currently imposed on pool owners and territorial authorities in relation to residential pools while maintaining child safety." I stated then that those were conflicting purposes—to reduce compliance on pool owners and still maintain child safety. It still concerns me.I am pleased that my colleagues have said that our support for this bill is contingent on the Government supporting Labour's Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Jacinda Ardern the reason being that right throughout the bill—and I am glad to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has made some significant changes. We were told from the outset in the regulatory impact statement that this bill would save more lives but I know that my colleagues would have heard evidence from the submitters from their experiences that would have challenged that regulatory impact statement by the Government. In fact the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons stated that the only thing that will improve the current rate of drownings in pools in New Zealand is improved compliance. That is more compliance rather than less and yet throughout the bill it is riddled with an emphasis on reducing compliance or the burden of pool owners.I want to come to what my colleague Meka Whaitiri has raised earlier and that is new clauses 6A 6B and 6C which give specific responsibilities around pool safety to the chief executive the building consent authority and the territorial authority. The question I ask is: are we now making the territorial authority and chief executive responsible for any mishaps that occur? If so great but the responsibility must also fall squarely on the pool owner.Once upon a time I was on the Manukau City Council the greatest council in all of New Zealand—three terms—David Shearer: We abolished it.Su'a WILLIAM SIO: —well this Government abolished it—and the officials who dealt with swimming pools during my time emphasised that this legislation was so stringent that it was really about saving the lives of children. In fact one time I asked an official what sort of depth could a child drown in and I will never forget it because he said a child could drown in a puddle of water outside. I imagine that would be a baby. If unattended a child could easily fall—and he said it did not need to be very deep but a child could drown.I still have concerns and I am really glad that we are saying that we will support this bill if the Government supports Jacinda Ardern's Supplementary Order Paper because we are trying to install more safety in this. But the original purpose of the Government was not about child safety but about removing some of the burden on pool owners. I see that the select committee did work and did try to make some changes in the legislation and one of the things that I am glad it has managed to convince the Government to change is the inspection regime from 5 years to 3 years. Auckland Council in its submission said that if you leave it for too long—it has practical evidence that that actually enables owners to allow their pools and the safety of those pools to deteriorate. In fact Auckland Council maintains that the regime should continue with 3-yearly inspections as 65 percent of pools are found to be non-compliant when inspected within this time frame.Although the select committee has made some amendments that have taken us back to the original legislation in terms of stringency around the protection of lives of children it just seems to me—why did we do this in the first place? What was it? If we were already saving lives under the old legislation what is it that we are now trying to do—to provide more opportunities for young people and children to drown? I just do not get it. I do not get it and I am not quite sure what the Government's intentions were other than what the stated purpose was: to remove the burden on pool owners. I have heard some pool owners say look it is their pool so why should local government interfere?But that then begs the question: what if a child does drown there? Whom do we hold responsible? The fine is $5000. What does that mean? Is that the value that we place on a child's life? I know that that is not the case but I am trying to say to this House and to this Government which has brought this bill through: what is it that we are trying to do here? If we have saved lives with the old legislation what on earth are we trying to do with the new legislation particularly with the stated aim and the fact that the select committee has had to push to make further changes? We still have not got them and that is the reason we are saying that we will support this bill provided the Government supports the Supplementary Order Paper that will be discussed later on.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Which is in the following part.Su'a WILLIAM SIO: That is right that is right—in the following part—and therefore I have not made any mention of the contents of that Supplementary Order Paper other than to make reference that although there have been some good changes here this is not a complete bill. It does not give me confidence at all. Certainly for those organisations that are working to promote safety in waters—I do not think that they are confident with this particular bill. Despite the changes that the select committee has attempted to make to improve the legislation I do not think that we are confident enough to go ahead unless the Government tells us—and we will debate that Supplementary Order Paper in the next while.I want to also then turn to the—I cannot see the clause but there is a clause there where the chief executive officer decides who is the pool person who inspects the pools. Hopefully that means that the chief executive of the Government department—we are now giving him some sense of authority that by appointing the pool inspector the public will have confidence that it is a legitimate specialist person with the skills a person who is professional in that duty. But again what about the pool owner? Do we hold the pool owner responsible to ensure that the work is carried out proficiently and carried out safely and that at the end of the day there is safety for the children in that household? I simply say that although the select committee has made some good changes to move this bill towards making sure that there is safety for all children it begs the question of why we are then repealing the old legislation. What it ought to be doing really is improving the old legislation not repealing the old legislation.I maintain that there are not sufficient safety clauses to give people the confidence that young people and children are going to be protected particularly if there are pools in the household that they live in. Without the support of this Government on the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Jacinda Ardern—of which I will not discuss the content until we come to the next part—we will not be supporting this bill."