Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I think that Mr Sio's question—he asked why we should be repealing the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act—is a very good one. As some of the submitters said this was one of the most successful child safety laws that we have had in New Zealand and that is because it sent a very clear message to pool owners and to the swimming pool industry that pools needed to be fenced to protect young children. In clause 6C of this bill new section 67A is inserted into the Building Act and there is the introduction of a test that will allow swimming pool owners potentially to apply to local authorities and to get a waiver or a modification if that territorial authority having regard to all the circumstances is satisfied that the modification and I quote from the bill would not significantly increase the danger to children under 5 years of age." So rather than having that clear message to everybody that pools need to be properly fenced we now have the potential for these waivers and modifications leading to considerable uncertainty and to arguments by pool owners with the local authority that their fencing is adequate. So it is moving as Metiria Turei said to a system of performance which does not provide the certainty that the current legislation does. We had submitters like Water Safety New Zealand estimating that it is not just the tragedies that the current law averts but also the major cost of over $100 million since 2005 of protecting children from hospitalisations from near drowning. So there is a major financial benefit to the existing legislation as well as its simplicity and the strong message it sends to make sure that pools are properly fenced to avoid drownings. So that is one of the reasons that the Green Party is opposing this bill—because of this uncertainty and inconsistency and the lack of clarity that will be created with this new provision that allows for waivers and modifications if it does not "significantly increase the danger to children" whatever that means. The existing law talks about protecting young children; this bill changes it to "children under 5 years of age". We all know that children over 5 and young toddlers are equally at risk of drowning so again it is a weakening of the legislation—a weakening and an undermining of child safety. We should not even be having that discussion or encouraging local authorities to have discussions about whether things significantly increase the risk to children under 5 years. We should be ensuring that our law protects those children and that is another reason for Metiria Turei's Supplementary Order Paper 213. There was a lot of information that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee—Australian research—about the need for and the benefits of having four-sided fencing. Four-sided fencing is ensuring that there are no windows or doors in any building that abuts the pool area that can give children access to the pool. That is why her Supplementary Order Paper is important—because it will ensure that where a building does form part or all of an immediate pool area there must be no windows doors or other openings to that immediate pool area that can allow children to get through and potentially be at risk of drowning. This bill is weakening currently very successful legislation that has averted a number of child drownings and is replacing it with a test that is likely to lead to significant uncertainty and lack of clarity. It also imposes extra costs on local authorities and for all of these reasons the Green Party is opposing the bill."