Pool fencing vote ‘extraordinary’

Press, 23 September 1983, Page 4

Pool fencing vote ‘extraordinary’

Parliamentary reporter

Mr J. J. Terris (Lab., Western Hutt) yesterday described a vote on pool fencing by Miss Ruth Richardson (Nat., Selwyn) as extraordinary and illogical. He said that he was bitterly disappointed that she had voted against an Opposition amendment that would have enabled firm Government action on pool fencing this year. Instead, after speaking vehemently for making the fencing of private swimming pools mandatory, she had voted with the Government to leave it in the hands of local authorities. Mr Terris said he was annoyed because the select committee report on which Miss Richardson voted had sprung from his attempt to make fencing compulsory through a private members’ bill last year. She had appeared to oppose the committee’s recommendation to leave pool fencing to local authorities but had voted for it.

“She said that something should be done, she agreed that something should be done now, and then she voted with the Government

not to do anything,” he said. “That is an extraordinary situation; a complete dislocation of logic.” Miss Richardson said she voted with the Government because the Opposition amendment would not have made pool fencing mandatory. It would have recommitted the matter to the committee and she did not believe that it needed recommitting. The committee had published a compelling report that was a challenge to local authorities. She said the authorities should be given time to absorb it.

They had to be given the “benefit of the doubt” on whether they were responsible.

“An intelligent reading of the report must force local authorities to the same conclusion that I have come to — that mandatory fencing is a must,” said Miss Richardson.

If, by mid-1984, there was not universal adherence by local authorities to the revised model pool fencing by-law, she would introduce legislation making it mandatory.

She said she had gone further than the committee which has said that legislation would be considered in 12 months if local authorities did not make progress in passing by-laws. She challenged all local authority candidates to declare their position on support a by by-law requiring pool fencing. Mr Terris, said he was dissatisfied with Miss Richardson’s position. It meant that there would be no action on pool fencing for 12 months.

“Anyone who thinks that local bodies are going to take any effective steps between now and next year knows nothing about local bodies.

“The way the Government had handled this whole thing will be seen by local authorities as a signal that they can do as they like,” he said. If the Opposition amendment has been passed, the committee would have had to produce legislation this year to make local authorities pass by-laws. "Instead, for at least the next 12 months, pre-school children will not be protected,” he said.