Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Derivative Financial Instruments | Main | Thames Community Board »

Swimming Pools (2)

The following is the content of my post dated 15 February:

One could be forgiven for expecting that this season's crop of swimming pool deaths may have stayed the hand of those who consider the imposition of the swimming pool regulations a gross infringement of personal rights - principally swimming pool owners of course. 

Regardless of how each of us feels personally about these regulations, they are the law, passed by a majority in Parliament, and councils are obliged to implement them. In fact, councils, including our own are required to produce regular statistics indicating progress with implementation. Sanctions are available to the Department of Internal Affairs to ensure compliance. End of story, unless of course you reject the rule of law.

It appears that some of our Councilors are that way inclined, and disposed to instruct our staff to let up on implementation of the regulations. One Councillor has characterised the regulations as "Gestapo" like, and stated that we are not, and should not be responsible if a couple of kids die in pools.

If you are inclined towards this kind of anarchic view, then you won't have much sympathy with this post.

I for one state categorically that any councillor who expresses this point of view has no right to sit on our Council. Such is the way in which progress towards full compliance is stopped in its tracks, and staff who have been specifically recruited to oversee implementation move on, discouraged and demoralised.

I trust that the majority of Councillors will ensure that this act of defiance, responding to the views of a few disgruntled pool owners who are admittedly facing substantial bills to bring their pools up to standard, is rejected, and that progress towards overall compliance can continue without further hindrance.

Unfortuanately, the view was apparently expressed within the Judicial Committee that has overall responsibility for regulations and their implementation. A shame, and a disgrace.

Staff at the time the post was written were clearly unhappy, and concerned at the turn of events within the Judicial Committee. Certain reactionary councillors gave fair warning during and subsequent to the election of their intention to make sure that staff were told to 'back off' on the implementation of the government regulations. 

I am pleased to report that there have been indications that these same 'warriors of the right' have been put in their place by Cr. Wynn Hoadley who chairs the Committee. Wynn is of course a solicitor and would be well aware of the Council's legal obligation to both implement the regulations, and ensure their adequate enforcement.

My information is that good progress is now being made. It did not take long for reality to set in along with understanding of the different level of responsibility required of a councillor once elected. I will refrain in the meantime from naming the councillors who initially indicated their intention to frustrate the process, but this is dependent on the continued advancement towards adequate enforcement.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (1)

Parliament , peopled by humans make laws for us to abide by, even if we disagree, but, like Councillors, they are prone to human error. If Clrs believe the gov. got it wrong they need to send a submission to the P.M. on our behalf.

June 30, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterPeter H Wood.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>