We all realise that there were unfortunate drownings prior to the FoSP Act 1987 – so why do “they” include pre-1987 statistics when trying to “prove” swimming pools are dangerous?

Water Safety NZ recently sent me their recent stats on pool drownings: The graphic (left) are the past twenty-three years ….

Drownings in Compliant Fenced Pools are on the right side.
(These numbers do not differentiate between Spa pools and Swimming Pools)

Where do “they” get the “twelve kids a year drown in home pools” stats? This is blatantly UNTRUE!

Water Safety themselves recently sent out a fact sheet that said “ between 1980 and 1986 there were 69 pre-schoolers drown in home spas or swimming pools “ (no distinction available) “which equated to an average of 10 per year” IN THOSE YEARS!

The same Water Safety document reports 74 drownings in the 14 years 1.Jan.1987 and 31.Oct.2001. Using my warehouse calculator, I still make this only 5.2 per annum -AND- Water Safety tells me that recent study shows that 85% of these occur in UNFENCED or UNCOMPLIANT pools!

That’s 56 drownings in UNCOMPLIANT POOLS! So therefore it follows that there were18 in COMPLIANT pools – average: 1.2 per year. These are in SPAS and POOLS that COMPLY

Obviously these are TRAGIC ACCIDENTS that MAY HAVE BEEN avoided by VIGILANCE on the part of the caregiver. Every death is regrettable, but the Fencing Act does the best job SECONDARILY to caregiver VIGILANCE!

Even the Crown Minister repeated their UNTRUE STATISTICS.
I was so shocked that a MINISTER OF THE CROWN would read out such UNTRUE AND MISLEADING statistics, that I stopped him on the way out to point out his error! He told me that “Ministerial Papers are well researched, and not likely to be wrong” but that he would “look into it”.
“they” even try to fool the Government!

WHY?

PERHAPS because when Water Safety NZ tells me that 50% of pools in NZ DO NOT COMPLY with the regulations. It starts to make sense ....

Councils – therefore – must be trying to DIVERT ATTENTION from their inadequate performance in the application of an Act of Parliament despite the 16 years it has been in force!

If “their” motive (as they all piously spout) is “the safety of little children” then how come one fencing officer stood up in front of the meeting and scandously admitted that – since sending out a letter to 5,500 pool owners - he had “five calls from people who we had no record of even having a pool”

Does THIS sound like your local Council acting to protect little kids?

Doesn’t it seem reasonable that this Fencing Officer would be better employed “finding all the incompliant pools” in his patch, rather than stirring up a ratepayer’s revolt by introducing TOUGHER RETROSPECTIVE rules? This seems to be the way New Zealand I going – forget targeting the real problem, just make life harder for those of us who do our best to comply – like Speed Cameras set to 55.5ks, which don’t mean a thing to those driving unregistered cars (an there’s a lot of them, apparently) – you get the point.

A concerted campaign on “Swimming Pool Safety Awareness” would be a far better approach. One a Minister like the Hon David Cunliffe could do well for himself by getting behind.

I for one would include this type of information in every pool brochure I send out – but not the current “negative” approach of the current campaign. (I miss my sister) which I think is mindless and ineffective and will only "put buyers off swimming pools". This couldn't be their motive, could it?

NZMPBG e&oe AND without prejudice © 2003

*Smoke and mirrors – as used by magicians to trick the public