Editorial: New pool signs rule an insult

Opinion

The Weekend Herald brought news of yet another safety requirement for private swimming pools. A recently drafted rule drawn up by Standards New Zealand in consultation with local councils demands that water safety signs be put on every door that opens to a pool, spa pool or hot tub. Why?

"The reason is to remind homeowners, or visitors, of their responsibility, should doors form part of a fence, to close them," said Ian Godfrey, chairman of the standards development committee. What is it about private swimming pools that makes officialdom want to treat the proprietors as imbeciles?

Is it simply that 136 toddlers have been drowned in domestic swimming pools over the past 25 years? A greater number, 250, have been drowned in other circumstances, but perhaps those hazards are less easily regulated. Nobody can be blamed for doing what they can in the cause of safety, but it is too easy to justify grossly intrusive rules on the grounds that even one child's life might be saved.

It is past time to challenge that simple appeal to sentiment. Life is never going to be entirely without risk for children. It is the responsibility of their parents and the community to minimise that risk reasonably, but not to the exclusion of the reasonable rights of others. No pool owner wants a child to wander unsupervised into the vicinity of the pool. Most need no bylaw to tell them to fence their property. But the rules have long exceeded the bounds of reason by insisting that the fence be practically at pool-side.

The latest revision of the rules appears intended to liberalise them a little in response to successful court challenges to some councils' excessive zeal. The proposed mandatory door signs are to apply to doors that form part of a wider permitted area within the fencing requirement. But really, do owners need a sign to tell them to shut the door? And if they do, is a sign going to make any difference?

In typical style, the Standards Association and its helpful councils have not stopped at stipulating a sign. They have laid down that it must be 1m to 5m off the ground, be within 30cm of the door handle and carry lettering in black or white. No wonder Mr Godfrey sounds keen to point out that the revised rules for fencing are more flexible than the present law on permissible types and materials.

The revision is a welcome, if long overdue, response to uncertainties in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act drawn to Parliament's "urgent" attention by High Court Justice Tony Randerson two years ago. The revised fencing rule seems to be in line with his decision that the required enclosure may include a barbecue area and poolside furniture.

But in other respects the new regime may not be as welcome. It will treat inground spa pools exactly as swimming pools, requiring that they be fenced even though they must also have a rigid lockable cover. Just 17 toddlers have been drowned in spa pools in the past 25 years. Not many spa pools are built with building consents anyway, though they require them. It is hard to see that the new rules will be policed any better than those applying at present.

All around the country, but particularly in the north, pool fencing requirements have caused no end of consternation and confusion. Property owners resented, or quietly resisted, regulations that varied in their enforcement and were, strictly interpreted, quite unreasonable. The revised regime looks to be more acceptable but it is a pity about the insulting signage. They will be an emblem of the safety obsession of the age, bringing to mind the fabled warning that reads: "Beware, this sign has hard edges." How long before it is no joke?