Tuesday, 25 August 2015

TUESDAY, 25 AUGUST 2015

TUESDAY, 25 AUGUST 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Workplace Health and Safety—Risk Categories and Agriculture

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, given his decision not to include sheep, beef, and dairy farming in his Proposed Schedule of High Risk Industries?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Andrew Little: Given that the nationwide average death rate is four workers per 100,000, and dairy farming’s death rate is 16 workers per 100,000, why is farming not considered high risk?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because we use an accepted standardised list of industries, shared by Australia and New Zealand, which is used for statistics and data collection. I am advised that businesses that carry the risk of a catastrophic event causing multiple fatalities, or industry with more than 25 fatalities per 100,000 workers or a serious injury rate of 25 per 1,000 workers, are deemed high risk.

Andrew Little: Given that ACC charges twice the levy on dairy farming that it does on lavender growing, why does he say that lavender growing is high risk but dairy farming is not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the test was one against the other, I would probably tend to agree with the member, but the test is not. Lavender farming will be included in the “other” category. The Government is going through a consultation on those, and they may well be taken out.

Andrew Little: If the Government’s objective with this bill is to make workers safer, how can he possibly defend cutting out farming, which accounts for a third of all workplace deaths, from one of the most important protections?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is showing his complete ignorance of the legislation, because, actually, every farm and every business in New Zealand will have an increased level of responsibility and care when it comes to workplace health and safety. Every business, including every farm, will have to deal with that, and the employers will have to be responsible for that. Every director of every business, large and small, will have greater responsibilities. Those contractors who work together will be persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs). In fact, the member himself, even though he probably does not know it, is about to become a PCBU for his electorate office. And Winston Peters would be, if he bothered to open—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. I hope I will hear it from the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s penchant is to end answers in the way that he just did. For his information, we have already got two offices going in Northland now.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I thank the member for his contribution—[Interruption] Order! I am calling for order, particularly from this side at the moment. I thank the member for his contribution, but it was not a point of order.

Andrew Little: Does—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have now risen to my feet three times to try to get some order in this House. If members continue with interjections that are disrupting the order of the House, I will be asking somebody to leave the Chamber.

Andrew Little: Does the Prime Minister agree that the ridiculous situation where working with lavender and butterflies is high risk but working with bulls and explosives is not has undermined public confidence in his health and safety reforms; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; because most people who have studied this legislation understand it. They understand that every single business in New Zealand, large or small, has much greater care and responsibility as a result of the law. What we are talking about is whether something is high risk or low risk for the matter of having a health and safety representative in the workplace. As the member knows, that is only one of a great many things that the legislation changes.

Andrew Little: If he thinks butterfly breeding is high risk but dairy farming is not, can he tell us the last time a rampaging butterfly had to be shot by police in the streets of Whanganui?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I think is high risk is being leader of the Labour Party, because I have seen plenty of those come and go.

Andrew Little: Given that we have one chance to get it right to make Kiwis safer at work, but this bill is discredited and in disarray, will he take up my offer to work jointly to craft meaningful legislation that the whole country can support?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not think that that is required. The legislation has gone through a complete process. The member is trying to say that because of one aspect of the regulations, somehow there is not a substantial change to workplaces—[Interruption] Well, that is what the member is trying to say, and that actually shows that the member is not taking the process seriously.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table my letter to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Economy—Resilience and Debt

2. JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is the New Zealand economy placed to be resilient to international economic fluctuations?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The New Zealand economy is well placed. First, we have a floating exchange rate, which can assist to smooth the domestic implications of international volatility in global markets. Secondly, we have a clear monetary policy framework, which includes the Reserve Bank’s authority to adjust short-term interest rates as it judges appropriate. Thirdly, a programme of microeconomic reform over recent years means that our industries are in a better position to adjust quickly and to adapt to changes in international market conditions. Fourthly, New Zealand households have had a positive net savings rate for 5 years. Household bank deposits have doubled since 2007, and the Government is on track to surplus and keeping Government debt levels low.

Jono Naylor: How do New Zealand’s exchange rate policy settings support the resilience of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We see around the world, alongside fluctuations in sharemarkets, continuing decreases in commodity prices, and we know that there has recently been a substantial fall in dairy prices affecting New Zealand. The Global Dairy Trade index remains 39 percent below its March peak. However, there have been some offsetting factors. The exchange rate has fallen around 25 percent against the US dollar since mid-2014. This lower exchange rate will provide some cushioning for the effect of lower dairy prices, but, just as important, it will assist the profitability of other industries that have no connection to dairy at all, such as tourism, which is now our largest industry and which was forced to become more efficient when the exchange rate was US88c and, of course, is now able to expand and become profitable with the exchange rate being significantly lower.

Jono Naylor: What other factors support resilience in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our households have in the last 6 or 7 years been through a considerable process of adjustment. Many of them have decreased their debt, many of them have been very careful about the new debt that they might incur, and they have increased their savings rates. They have also been dealing with relatively low costs of living, and they have been careful with their consumption. Alongside that, our businesses have seen quite high rates of business investment. In fact, there has been a 6 percent growth in business investment per annum over the past 4 years, which means firms are in a reasonable position now to take advantage of favourable factors such as the lower exchange rate.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, by how much has net Government debt grown since he became the Minister of Finance? If he does not know the exact answer, it begins with $60 million.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Net Government debt has grown—and it has grown quite a bit—because the Government has taken a policy approach of adapting to the circumstances, rather than being paralysed by the notion that every week is a crisis. So when we had a global financial crisis, which was a real crisis, and major earthquakes in Canterbury, which were a crisis, we borrowed money to fund our way through that. The good news is that we are on track to surplus, and we will be able to stop borrowing more money.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the Minister’s answer—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the point of order.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand figures showing that net—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Statistics New Zealand figures are available to all members.

Jono Naylor: What reports has he seen on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of reports by people who are looking out through the events of the last few days, including Treasury and the Reserve Bank, and their reports indicate economic growth is expected to be around 2 to 2.5 percent per year over the next few years. That is the sort of moderate, sustainable growth that translates into higher wages and more jobs for New Zealand families. We are yet to see whether news over the last week or so of decreases in stock markets around the world will make some difference to those growth forecasts. But it is not obvious that they will make a big difference, nor that it will make a difference soon, but we can only wait and see.

Economic Programme—Performance

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Can he tell us all again about the so-called rock star economy and his policies to maintain it?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, my office has been advised that the answer may be slightly longer than normal.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It sure will. I have never described the economy as a “rock star”. It was HSBC economist Paul Bloxham, who reaffirmed that view once again in March of this year. But I am happy to take the member through some of the policies in the economy, and, of course, the policies to maintain it, as he asked of me, so here we go. We have reformed labour laws, including introducing the 90-day probation period. That has helped contribute to 69,000 more jobs in the last year and 200,000 since 2011. That flexibility in the labour market has helped average wages go up now to over $57,000—$10,000 more than since National came into office in 2008. Every single year we have increased the minimum wage, and that has helped those workers in the workplace. On top of that, we have invested and got on top of public spending and increased public services. The books have gone from an $18.4 billion deficit—

Chris Hipkins: Point of order. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! In case the front bench of the National caucus had not noticed, a point of order has been called.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like some further clarification from you. The Standing Orders require that answers are terse and to the point, and that you can vary that where there is a technical answer that does require a more detailed explanation. I would perhaps like you to elaborate to the House as to why you feel that that is something that is actually technical or detailed in nature that requires that level of attention of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to differentiate my point of order from that of my colleague from the Labour Party, but I am moving an extension of time because that cannot be it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to comment on the point raised by Chris Hipkins. It is a situation where I looked at the question—and it is almost asking us to say it again—and I accepted the call from the Prime Minister that the answer would be longer than normal. It is getting to the stage very shortly where I intend to curtail the answer—[Interruption] Order! I will give the Prime Minister a brief opportunity to conclude his answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I have three pages of material and I am only halfway through page 1, but let us please carry on—for as long as the Speaker deems fit, of course. So, yes, we have got public spending in order, going from an $18.4 billion deficit to, hopefully, a surplus very soon. In my own portfolio, we have invested more in tourism. Last week we welcomed the three millionth—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now I have heard enough.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I seek leave to table all these wonderful policies, if Mr Peters would like to have them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is—[Interruption] Order! On the basis that the Prime Minister advised he had a longer answer than normal and there has been objection to the length of it, and I think it has gone on for long enough, I am going to put the leave and it will be over to the House to decide.

Hon Member: What’s the source?

Mr SPEAKER: The source—I should just check with the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The source is my office.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is put. It is over to the House. Leave is sought to table the rest of the answer. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he tell the House about his record-breaking performance in regard to debt, where he has taken net Government debt from $10 billion up to almost seven times that figure, or $70 billion, and still rising?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am actually glad the member raised the issue of debt, because when we came into office the advice we had from Treasury was that if we carried on with all of the policies we were inheriting from the previous Labour Government that were unfunded, then by the early 2020s debt to GDP would be 60 percent. We know from the last Budget that it is approximately 26 percent. Under the economic leadership of this Government, New Zealanders have $100 billion less debt than they otherwise would have. No wonder that member is in Opposition.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell this House which of his Budget deficits was his rock star favourite: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We will have to wait and see whether the Budget for the last financial year actually produces a surplus or a deficit. Yes, actually, the Government has borrowed money, and that has been to get New Zealanders through those very difficult conditions we inherited with the global financial crisis and to stand behind the people of Christchurch. I did not see a single political party after the Christchurch earthquakes get up and say: “Abandon the people of Christchurch.” But it has cost about $16.5 billion to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Prime Minister tell us how satisfied he is with his performance, since under his watch there are now 54,000 more people unemployed than there were when he took power, and whether, like debt, he intends to set a new record there too?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Since early 2011 over 200,000 New Zealanders are in work who were not in that case. Yes, the population is slightly higher, but I think that if you go and ask any Australian whether they think the New Zealand economy is doing pretty well, you might find that they say it is. One of the reasons the member could do that, if he wanted to get out of his office, is that, actually, there are lots and lots of Australians coming over to New Zealand because they see that the economic fortunes of New Zealand are stronger than Australia’s. I reckon that is testament to a pretty good economic performance.

Tim Macindoe: Go and enjoy the “Green Parakeet”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That guy would get drunk on a wine biscuit. Can I ask the Prime Minister how satisfied he is with his performance since, under his watch, manufacturing as against GDP has gone from 33 percent and is now heading towards 26 percent on all forecasts, and exports against GDP are declining as well?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am happy with the performance of the manufacturing sector. The Government does not take credit for all of that, but the BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index has expanded 34 months in a row. My performance is OK. The performance I am worried about is that of the member for Northland, who promised four offices—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Prime Minister resume his seat.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is a very sensitive issue, but the Prime Minister began in that vein in his first answer today. He is back to it again and he has not been admonished or told to apologise or leave the House. No, no—he keeps on doing it, and he is telling porkies.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, nor is it helpful for the order of the House, and nor is it helpful—[Interruption] Order! Nor is it helpful for the Prime Minister to continue in his vein with his answers. As soon as he has, I have shut him up on both occasions.

Hon Paula Bennett: Get back on your bus.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, well, I can fit in it.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If you cannot take it, do not dish it out.

Mr SPEAKER: Just ask your supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This of the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will—I now have a point of order from the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that comment by Mr Peters cannot go left unchecked in Parliament. If we are going to start getting into calling people names like 3-year-olds, I really think that we are losing the plot in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the interjection from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was certainly responding to interjections that were coming from my right-hand side. The House needs to settle, otherwise I will be asking some members to leave question time today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does he think that flooding New Zealand—

Hon Member: Come on, “Donald Trump”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, well, Donald has got hair like you. Why does he think that flooding New Zealand with net immigration—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is the very last warning I am giving to two members on the front bench, Mr Brownlee and Mr Joyce. Now would the member please start his question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You are most kind. To the Prime Minister: why does he think that flooding New Zealand with net immigration, now at almost 60,000 per annum, in some sort of consumptive binge is going to help New Zealand’s productive export economy?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member started question time today basically trying to say that the HSBC analysis of the New Zealand economy was somehow wrong. One of the reasons why the New Zealand economy has performed well over last 7 years is that this Government has actually taken an international view of the way the economy should operate and function. That has included making sure that we actually do welcome tourists to New Zealand. We do welcome people who want to come and study in New Zealand. We do want to welcome migrants to New Zealand. We do want to have free-trade agreements with other countries. The member seems to want a high-growing economy, but he wants to put a massive wall around New Zealand and have no one coming and no one going. What a joke!

Finance, Minister—Chinese Economy

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “risks arising from Greece and China have receded somewhat and that there has been an improvement in the outlook for our trading partners. That is positive for the New Zealand outlook”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement at the time it was made, and I will alert the member to what that statement was, although he already knows. In response to a question about Treasury’s advice on global risks, I said: “Overall, Treasury concludes that risks arising from Greece and China have receded somewhat and that there has been an improvement in the outlook for our trading partners.” Of course, there have been some indications in the last week or two that the risk associated with China may, in fact, be growing rather than shrinking. We are reliant on the Chinese Government’s track record of being able to manage pretty difficult and challenging financial and economic circumstances. We are yet to see whether it can, for instance, push against the tide of a falling stock market. Then we will find out whether that makes any difference to New Zealand.

Grant Robertson: Did he challenge that advice from Treasury, given that he provided it to the House less than 2 weeks ago, on the same day that China had the largest devaluation of its currency since its modern exchange rate system was introduced and in the same week that it was confirmed that around 30 percent of the value of the Chinese sharemarket had been lost?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are always debating these issues, and not just with Treasury. In fact, I have had the opportunity to discuss them with the Chinese Minister of Finance, Mr Lou Jiwei, who indicated his own challenges in trying to understand exactly what was happening in the Chinese economy. The Chinese Government has, like many other Governments, taken extraordinary monetary and financial measures to keep growth going in its economy. At some stage, those measures will start to unwind. Who knows—it might be this week. But the markets may flatten out in the next few weeks and it may be 6 months before it happens again. No one really knows.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I listened very carefully to the answer. I think that the question was addressed on this occasion. The member has further supplementary questions; he can use them.

Jami-Lee Ross: What reports of alternative strategies for the New Zealand economy has the Minister seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unfortunately, I see two regular reports from a particular group that, on each headline that might be negative for the economy, panics, declares a crisis, and demands that all previous plans be changed and replaced. I could give the House a clue as to what that particular—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This answer is not going to help the order of the House.

Grant Robertson: Why did he make the comment about China’s outlook being “reasonably positive” when data released the same week that he made that comment saw an 8 percent drop, year on year, in exports from China and an 8 percent drop, year on year, in imports into China?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said in my answer to an earlier question, I was asked what reports we had seen about these risks and I quoted Treasury’s most recent advice—granted, it may not update it 2 hours ahead of every Chinese Government data release. These things seem to have been moving pretty quickly recently. So I am happy to provide the member with an updated risk assessment on China. But, as I said, having talked to the finance Minister for China and having listened to his concerns about how to assess exactly what is going on in that vast and complex economy, I am somewhat sceptical that we will be able to predict what is going to happen there.

Grant Robertson: Does he share the view of the Prime Minister that the slowdown in China is more of an issue for Australia than it is for New Zealand; if so, does he not think that a slowdown in our biggest export market, which is bad news for our second-biggest export market, might also be bad news for us?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think yes, and yes.

Grant Robertson: Given that First NZ Capital’s assessment that the risk of a recession in New Zealand has been heightened by slowing growth in China, the dairy price slump, and stalling business confidence, does he still believe that he does not need a plan B for the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, I do not necessarily agree with First NZ Capital’s assessment of the probability of recession, but that is a matter for debate. As I have pointed out to the member, the Government is following a plan, at the heart of which is our ability to adapt to changing global circumstances. The country is not going to change its plans every single day that the Labour Party says there is a crisis. Like most people in New Zealand, the Government takes a medium-term view of our economic prospects and behaves consistently to maximise those prospects. That is what many households and businesses today are doing, despite the fact that they have read headlines in the paper that the Labour Party is calling a crisis and that everyone else sees as volatility in financial markets that may or may not affect their business.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, why is he ignoring the calls of 75 percent of chief executive officers who responded to the “Mood of the Boardroom” survey, bank economists, and Federated Farmers, who are all calling for a plan B for the economy; or is he just so arrogant that he thinks he has got it all right?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said—I think it was in the House last week—having chatted to one or two of the people claimed to be calling for a plan B, none of them could actually tell me what plan B was. The Government’s plan is that if circumstances change significantly, then it would alter some policy settings, as appropriate. So we are monitoring what is happening in the global economy, but we are not losing sight of the fundamental stability required for this economy to thrive and to deliver jobs and more income to New Zealand households.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Government-funded Carbon Credits

5. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s policy of giving taxpayers’ money to a handful of big companies to pay for their carbon pollution?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is referring to our ensuring that there is some support for companies that face competition in export markets because they do not have an emissions trading scheme like we do, then, yes, I support some protection for them.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s 2014 policy of giving $5.3 million worth of taxpayer-funded carbon credits to Methanex when that company made over $100 million in after-tax profits that year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is misrepresenting the position. We have assisted industries that are competing internationally against overseas manufacturers who do not face emissions trading scheme costs. These industries still face some costs, but we think that it is fair that they are on a level playing field.

James Shaw: Does he stand by his Government’s policy in 2014 of giving $7.3 million worth of taxpayer-funded carbon credits to New Zealand Steel when its parent company made over $110 million in after-tax profits that year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that if the member wanted to join the analysis of the previous question to this question about New Zealand Steel, he would be making the case that we would be giving them a lot more.

James Shaw: Given that the profit margins of these companies exceed the value of the taxpayer-funded pollution credits by a factor of 15, how can he justify using taxpayers’ money to subsidise their carbon pollution?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not. Companies are in the emissions trading scheme. Some of the large companies that face international competition are put on a more level playing field, but, in the end, they all pay some emissions trading scheme charges along the way. The question is how quickly they can transition, but if we were to adopt what the member is saying, these companies would simply go out of business, relocate to another part of the world, Kiwis would lose their jobs, and it would be no better for the planet. So it is a rather neanderthal way of thinking about economics—if that is what the member wants to do.

James Shaw: Given that many New Zealand households and businesses are already doing their bit to reduce their carbon emissions, how does he justify using their taxpayer money to subsidise pollution from big industrial polluters?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not doing that, and the “their” he talks about are the very people who work in those companies, who would lose their jobs if we followed his policies.

James Shaw: Given that the purpose of an emissions trading scheme is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions have increased 13 percent since he took office, will he admit that his emissions trading scheme policy has failed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Roading, Tauranga—Eastern Link

6. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Transport: What update can he provide on the Tauranga Eastern Link, which is one of the Government’s Roads of National Significance?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was my absolute pleasure to stand alongside the Prime Minister recently and open the $455 million Tauranga Eastern Link. This new 21-kilometre, seven-bridge, four-lane highway is one of seven roads of national significance identified by the Government as being crucial to build New Zealand’s economy, and is only the second to be completed. The new highway was the Bay of Plenty’s biggest ever roading project. This new piece of lead infrastructure brings the region closer together, and, in doing so, will significantly boost growth through trade and travel in the region.

Todd Muller: How will the recently completed Tauranga Eastern Link road of national significance benefit road users?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: This new high-specification highway is a game-changer for the Bay of Plenty. It will support economic development and growth, boost industry and jobs, and improve road safety. The Tauranga Eastern Link will also shorten journey times by as much as 24 minutes for a return journey. It will also provide a safer and more efficient route to the Port of Tauranga, driving down the cost of moving freight, which improves the international competitiveness of the region and also the national economy.

Todd Muller: How does the Tauranga Eastern Link demonstrate the Government’s support for the regions?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: By building this important piece of lead infrastructure, the Government has proved yet again that we are delivering on our commitment that regional New Zealand has the transport infrastructure that it needs and it deserves. The new highway will support regional growth by opening up parts of the Western Bay of Plenty to residential and commercial development, and it will also ensure that the Eastern Bay of Plenty is better connected to the city and the wider region. The new Tauranga Eastern Link highway is a prime example of the Government’s focus on funding infrastructure that will drive New Zealand’s economic and social success in our regions.

Clayton Mitchell: Given the Government would have funded the Tauranga Eastern Link, the nationally significant road, itself in 7 to 10 years, how can it justify bringing the project forward and tolling the people of Tauranga for 35 years—35 years?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member is quite incorrect. The project has been brought forward by a number of years by the tolling. I am happy to tell the member, who I know, like me, lives in Tauranga, that after years of neglect this Government is delivering hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure projects to the people of the Bay of Plenty.

Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance

7. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: What was the date of the CCTV footage that led to a Serco staff member’s suspension for fighting an inmate at Mt Eden Corrections Facility?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): I believe that the date of the footage that the member is referring to is 23 June 2015. However, I reject the member’s assertion that the staff member was fighting an inmate.

Kelvin Davis: Will he admit that Serco’s management is systemically broken; if not, why not?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well, I will not admit that. What I will say is that there is currently a review going on around Mt Eden prison. I have said this time and time again in this House: until we get all the facts around the running of Mt Eden prison, decisions cannot be made around its future.

Kelvin Davis: Given that Serco advised him on 23 July that there were no other undisclosed issues with Mt Eden, which was not true, how can anyone trust Serco’s word?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well, the incident that that member refers to—I was notified on 6 August. I have not personally seen the footage, but I have been advised that it shows a prison guard on closed-circuit television footage approaching a group of prisoners who were sparring. He then gives them some coaching on their technique. Sparring is a banned activity, and Serco was shown the footage on 6 August. Serco has suspended the staff member while the investigation proceeds. [Interruption]

Kelvin Davis: Is the Minister saying—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet.

Kelvin Davis: Is the Minister saying that guards are now training the inmates how to fight?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: This case has been the subject of a lot of hearsay and misreporting. What I am saying is that it is currently under investigation by the chief inspector, and we should await the findings of his review.

Kelvin Davis: If phase one of the chief inspector’s review finds systemic issues of violence and mismanagement at Mt Eden, will the Minister at least give Serco a final warning; if not, why on earth not?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I have said time and time again that it is premature to make any decisions or conclusions around the review that is currently in place. I suggest that that member, along with me and the New Zealand public, waits for the findings of that review.

Kelvin Davis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking “if” the review finds systematic issues of violence, will he give Serco a final—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the Minister addressed that question.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In one of the Minister’s supplementary answers he read out a description of the incident. I think that might have been from an official document, so if he could table that—

Mr SPEAKER: It can be easily ascertained. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? [Interruption] He was not, so therefore there is nothing to table.

Dairy Industry—Diversification

8. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What reports has he received on Government support for diversification in the dairy industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have received numerous reports that outline how the Government is supporting diversification in the dairy industry, from inside the farm gate right through to overseas markets. This includes investment partnerships through the Sustainable Farming Fund, a $170 million transforming the dairy value chain Primary Growth Partnership programme, reports outlining opportunities for New Zealand dairy products in overseas markets, and, of course, much, much more. This support is helping to create new dairy products, increase on-farm productivity, reduce environmental impacts, and open up new markets for trade.

Todd Barclay: What are some examples of ways in which this support is helping to diversify our dairy industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Over the past 15 years the Government has invested, through the Sustainable Farming Fund, around $48 million in over 250 grassroots dairy projects. This includes projects covering the responsible use of antibiotics through to the conversion of dairy waste into a food source for land-based aquaculture—as I mentioned previously, transforming the dairy value chain. A joint industry and Government Primary Growth Partnership programme has allowed new products to evolve, including the development of world-leading technology that allows mozzarella cheese to be made in 1 day instead of 2 months. Also, Minister Joyce and I recently released Opportunities for New Zealand dairy products in South East Asia 2014, a report that highlights opportunities for our dairy industry to increase its exports of consumer-ready products into this important region.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table a report from the Office of the Auditor-General—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is a report that was tabled in this House.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Text of Agreement

9. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Which stakeholder groups have been briefed as to the draft content of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement since the completion of the last round of negotiations in July; and which groups have been briefed as to the process going forward for the agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Acting Minister of Trade): The Minister has made a number of public comments on the status of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, including this week from Kuala Lumpur. New Zealand’s position on the release of the draft text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement has not changed. The text is not being shared with stakeholders as negotiations are still continuing, and it and other negotiating proposals are subject to confidentiality undertakings agreed on by all Trans-Pacific Partnership countries. The Government continues to meet with and brief stakeholders about the specific areas of interest in the negotiation. Since the Maui meetings, this has included meetings with representatives from business groups, agricultural exporters, and the IT sector.

Dr Russel Norman: Does one of the groups that have been briefed as to the process going forward for the Trans-Pacific Partnership include National Party MPs; and, if so, can he explain why Dr Shane Reti, the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, told the Northern Advocate that “the agreement comes before Parliament and Opposition parties and select committees for debate and modification.”?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Todd McClay—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Minister has briefed a number of different groups, including arranging for negotiators from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to brief the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of Parliament. I note that the member is speaking of a member of that committee. I am not aware of what information was provided to that committee.

Dr Russel Norman: Will Parliament be able to modify the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement after the Government has signed it?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The member needs to be careful not to get ahead of himself. There is still a negotiation under way, and the Government has been clear that we will sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement only if it is for the overall good of New Zealand and the New Zealand economy. What I can confirm is that should we be successful in negotiating a high-quality agreement that is good for New Zealand, it will follow the same parliamentary process as other similar agreements.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very simple—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can anticipate the point of order. I am going to invite the member to ask that question again.

Dr Russel Norman: Thank you. Will Parliament be able to modify the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement after the Government has signed the agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The member needs to be careful not to get ahead of himself. There is no agreement under the Trans-Pacific Partnership yet. Should there be an agreement it would have to be in the overall best interests of New Zealand for the Government to sign it, and the process will be the same as every other trade agreement that is put before Parliament.

Dr Russel Norman: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member an additional supplementary question.

Dr Russel Norman: Will Parliament be able to modify the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement after the Government signs it?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The process that will be followed for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, should it be successfully negotiated and concluded, will include a national interest assessment, followed by enacting legislation. That is the normal process that we follow in this House with all agreements, including the New Zealand - Korea free-trade agreement, the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, and all other agreements that have been negotiated successfully in the interests of New Zealand.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question. The Minister is not answering a very simple question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a very simple question that has now been repeated twice. I see little point in repeating the question a third time, but the member certainly has an additional supplementary question, if he wants to use it.

Dr Russel Norman: Will Parliament be able to modify the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement after the Government signs it—yes or no?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I refer the member to my previous answer. This agreement, should it be concluded, will follow all other agreements that have come through this House. The agreement will go before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which will be able to put a report back to Parliament.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification and direction. What can the Opposition do when a Minister simply refuses to answer a question?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did not refuse; he gave an answer that did not answer the question—I agree with that. There is nothing I can do. It is the responsibility of the Minister to answer questions in this House. I judge whether the question has been answered. On either occasion, I did not think it had been satisfactorily addressed, so I gave the member additional questions to use. It will be now for the public and this House to judge the quality of the answer that has been given by the Minister.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a statement from Dr Shane Reti with regard to the process for ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, dated—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it a statement by Dr Shane Reti, or a newspaper article?

Dr Russel Norman: It is a press release released to the Northern Advocate, and nobody else, by Dr Shane Reti, dated 15 August 2015.

Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member has informed me correctly that it was released through a particular provincial newspaper and not released more widely, I will put the leave and it will be over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Health Targets—Emergency Departments

10. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that the health target for emergency departments has been met for the second consecutive quarter, meaning that 95 percent of people attending our emergency departments are treated, admitted, or discharged within 6 hours?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, I can. Over a quarter of a million patients were successfully admitted, discharged, or transferred from an emergency department within 6 hours in the last quarter. This is an excellent result, and represents the first time our hospitals have achieved the 95 percent target for two quarters in a row. The Government is continuing to provide better care for patients by delivering better and faster access to important health services.

Barbara Kuriger: What is the Government doing to drive sustained achievement of the emergency department health target?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In Budget 2015 the Government again made health funding the No. 1 priority, delivering an extra $1.7 billion over the next 4 years into public health services. The winter season is always tough on our emergency departments, and I want to thank our emergency department staff across the country for their dedication and excellent performance during these very busy months.

Hon Annette King: In light of the report today from Dunedin Hospital, how many patients are currently sitting in corridors under fluorescent lights because they cannot get into the emergency department because of overcrowding, something he said was a measure of a poorly operating health system?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am very surprised that the former Minister of Health has the gall to ask that question. But what I can tell her—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I was talking to Carol Heatly—[Interruption] Do you want to listen? I can—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am wanting the answer.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, sure. I was talking to Carol Heatly, the chief executive of the Southern District Health Board, during the last hour. She was saying that yesterday between Dunedin and Invercargill there were fewer than 10 people waiting briefly, having been seen, before they were transferred into the wards. So it is a very different situation than Mrs King’s failed tenure as health Minister.

Trade Agreements—Saudi Agri-hub

11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did he approve officials’ recommendation on 19 April 2012 to commence work on “finding an appropriate mechanism to meet Al Khalaf’s concern for ‘compensation’ (possibly through the joint venture)”; and was the $4 million payment to Al Khalaf the adopted mechanism, given Cabinet noted part of that payment was for “the settlement of the long-running dispute”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No, none of the six recommendations in the paper contained the quotation the member refers to.

Hon David Parker: Why was no tender process run in respect of the first $4 million payment to Mr Khalaf?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that the tender processes followed in relation to this matter followed all of the public sector guidelines. As the member will be aware, the Auditor-General is conducting an inquiry that will include the matters that he has referred to. The Government welcomes the inquiry as a means of resolving the questions that the member refers to.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the tender documents, which were in respect of the $6 million agri-hub, not the $4 million payment.

Mr SPEAKER: Have those documents not been tabled before?

Hon David Parker: I have not tabled that one. I believe—

Mr SPEAKER: OK, I will put the leave to table those particular tender documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Cabinet’s view was “there was a case the investor had put up, that we may have to fight that in court and there was probably a faster way of trying to resolve that”; if so, why does he now say it is not about compensation, when the Prime Minister admitted it was?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: All wise Ministers agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon David Parker: Why did he repeatedly refer to avoiding litigation in this House in early answers to questions, saying the deal was needed to resolve that prospect, given that his new view is that the payment was not compensation?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Despite the member’s attempts to distort the responses I have given on that question, that question is very fully answered by both the Cabinet paper I have tabled in this House and other responses to exactly that question.

Hon David Parker: If the chief executive officer of a company paid off a businessman getting in the way of a deal, that would be a bribe—what is different in this case?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am well aware that the member chooses to adopt an uncharitable view of this matter, but I want to refer to the fact that the Auditor-General is now inquiring into the very matters that he has raised in his question. The Government welcomes that inquiry as a basis for resolving this matter. Officials advise me that the decisions that have been made within the appropriation were lawful and in New Zealand’s foreign policy interests, and that remains my position.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister saying that a tender process was run in respect of the first $4 million payment to Mr Khalaf?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am saying that the appropriate processes were followed, both in respect of the $6 million payment and the $4 million payment.

Finance, Minister—Official Information Act Requests

12. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement in a response letter to my Official Information Act request dated 17 August 2015 that “The documents alleged to contain the information requested do not exist.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot respond on the specific statement because I do not know what he is referring to, but generally we would stand by the statements that I make in letters in response to the Official Information Act.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, then why do I have a copy of a letter, signed by him on 26 March 2013, to Federated Farmers that contradicts his statement that the documents do not exist and makes a mockery of the Official Information Act process?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know the answer to that question. We endeavour to comply at all times with the Official Information Act. In fact, in my office and in Treasury we are probably among the more proactive releasers of public information in the whole Public Service.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table three letters. One is dated 26 March 2013, from Bruce Wills of Federated Farmers. The second one is a letter—sorry, 13 March 2013, rather, from Bill English as well, to—I will rephrase this. Mr Wills’ letter of 13 February 2013 to Bill English, Mr English’s reply on 26 March 2013, and then his reply to me dated 17 August 2015—that is, three letters.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three particular letters. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled.

No. 8 to Minister, 20 August

Question

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that in questions to Ministers, as soon as Ministers become aware that they have given an incorrect answer in Parliament, they should raise that at the earliest opportunity. I have waited until the end of question time to hear a correction from Michael Woodhouse to question No. 8 last—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is in danger of creating disorder. That is not an appropriate use of the point of order. If the member feels that there has been misrepresentation made in this House, she knows the appropriate course. If she does not, she needs to refer to the Standing Orders.

Point of Order—Verification of Questions

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have waited until the end of questions to Ministers. There were two questions today that I would ask you to have a look at the verification for—question No. 4 and question No. 11—where the questions were based on quotes allegedly made by the Ministers, but both quotes were refuted by the Ministers. It would be interesting to know why the Clerk’s Office accepted those when, clearly, they were not quotes attributable to the Ministers.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assist—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, just a minute. I am calling the Hon David Parker to respond to that point of order.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I can assist, because we provided documentary proof in support of those quotes. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have a look at—[Interruption] Order! I will have a look at the information used to justify both of those questions. I cannot answer it, obviously, at the moment. Often those quotes are not particularly attributed to a member, but they still may be a quote attributed to somebody, and that is sufficient verification for a question to be asked. [Interruption] Order! But I will look at it more deeply before I respond to the member.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could I just—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is in addition to the point of order; it is not a challenge—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled that I will look into the matter. If there is a fresh point of order—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, you listened to something that I think was quite unreasonable—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member raised a point of order. I allowed the Hon David Parker to respond to it, to help me in making up my mind. I will have a look at further information to see whether those two questions submitted were satisfactorily verified.

Questions to Members

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill—Purpose

1. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill: Why did she draft the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill?

SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill): I drafted the bill because of the overwhelming research that shows the important brain development and other milestones that occur in the first 6 months of life. The evidence shows that if we are prepared to invest in supporting bonding between parent and baby and supporting breastfeeding to 6 months, then, as a country, we will save more money on funding the services needed for bad outcomes.

Poto Williams: What parliamentary support is she expecting to receive for her Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am receiving some interjection from my right-hand side. I am going to ask that member to ask that question again to ascertain whether I think it is in order.

Poto Williams: What parliamentary support is she expecting to receive for her Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not see that question being out of order. It can be answered.

SUE MORONEY: The bill has the full backing of my Labour colleagues. I have also been informed of valuable support from the Green Party, from New Zealand First, and from the Māori—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.

Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill—Support

2. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill: What indication of support has she received for putting forward the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill?

SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill): In another stroke of luck, the bill—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.

SUE MORONEY: The bill was drawn from the ballot the week prior to World Breastfeeding Week, and it immediately drew the support of the New Zealand Breastfeeding Authority, the New Zealand Educational Institute, and Plunket. They have been joined by 24 other community organisations, collectively known as 26 for Babies. This coalition involves organisations as diverse as the Maternity Services Consumer Council—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Iain Lees-Galloway: What has changed since she last had a bill before Parliament proposing 6 months’ paid parental leave for families and their babies?

Mr SPEAKER: Very briefly, Sue Moroney.

SUE MORONEY: This bill now requires just an additional 8 weeks’ paid leave as opposed to the 12 weeks with my previous bill. It is being debated during more favourable economic times and, importantly, since it was defeated on a 60:60 vote, National has lost the Northland—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat.

Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill—Purpose

3. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Member in charge of the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill: Why did she draft the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill?

CARMEL SEPULONI (Member in charge of the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill): Currently, anyone can call themselves a social worker without having any qualifications or being registered with the Social Workers Registration Board. At the 2013 census, over 18,000 people classified themselves as social workers. However, there are currently only 4,700 registered social workers. This bill will provide New Zealanders with the assurance that anyone working as a social worker in their schools and communities, with their children and families, has the relevant qualifications and experience—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Answers must be brief.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today I raised a point of order with you about whether the Prime Minister’s answers were, in fact, succinct, as required. Not only did he give a very long answer but you then invited him to continue the answer after that point—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. These are questions to members, and the way that I see them being used, I can see a discussion occurring at the Standing Orders Committee before too much longer about whether they are necessary. If they are simply a means of raising publicity on a bill that is placed on the Order Paper, I can see that being questioned by members. [Interruption] I do not need assistance from the member. The question has been answered. I will allow one short supplementary question from Poto Williams and an equally short answer.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify: I have given a ruling on this matter. If it is a new, fresh point of order, I will hear it.

Chris Hipkins: It is a point of clarification.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not interested in a point of clarification. I have ruled.

Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order—[Interruption] The member will just resume his seat. I am not interested in a point of clarification. If it is a fresh point of order, I am happy to hear it, but if I deem that it is not a fresh point of order, I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the ruling that questions cannot be used to promote bills apply to Government bills as well?

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot see what that point of order is, apart from seeking to clarify the answer that I have just given. [Interruption] Order!

Poto Williams: What concerns—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I get another interjection from Chris Hipkins, he will be leaving the Chamber for the balance of the day.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does your ruling in respect of members’ questions not being able to ask about support for bills—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I clarified earlier that in my mind, when we are seeing a number of times these questions being asked that are simply a means of promoting a member’s bill, I think that we are in danger of the Standing Orders Committee reconsidering the value of such questions. I am perfectly entitled to make that statement. It does not change the fact that these four questions are on the Order Paper. They can be asked, but they are to be asked in accordance with the Standing Orders.

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I just want to give him the same warning that I am giving other members in this House. I have ruled on this matter. If the member attempts in any way to relitigate my question or to seek further clarification when I have been absolutely clear, then I will, equally, be asking the Hon David Parker to leave the Chamber.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not challenging your ruling; I accepted that ruling. I put a different question, and that was whether the same rule applies to Government questions in respect of Government bills. That was a different point of order, which you have not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: No, clearly, the same rules would not apply.

Poto Williams: What concerns were raised with her during the drafting of the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to repeat the question because I could not hear it.

Poto Williams: What concerns were raised with her during the drafting of the Social Workers Registration—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Carmel Sepuloni—what concerns.

CARMEL SEPULONI: I will outline just two. One of the concerns raised was that the instances of misconduct were significantly higher amongst unregistered social workers. Parliamentary Library research compiled on this issue showed that of the 17 cases of misconduct reported in the media over the past 10 years, 16 of those 17 cases involving social workers involved unregistered social workers. Also, there was a concern raised that the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education do not collect information on whether or not the social workers delivering the Social Workers in Schools programme operating in low-decile schools—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is too long.

Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill—Support

4. POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Member in charge of the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill : What indications of support has she received for putting forward the Social Workers Registration (Mandatory Registration) Amendment Bill?

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Support from the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association, the Social Workers Registration Board, and numerous NGOs. It was even recommended in the 2014 White Paper for Vulnerable Children, but the Government decided not to accept this recommendation—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Poto Williams: What other indications of support for the mandatory registration of social workers have come to her notice?

Mr SPEAKER: Briefly, Carmel Sepuloni.

CARMEL SEPULONI: In 2001 a National MP by the name of Anne Tolley was supportive of the registration of social workers and was upset at the delay of the original bill. At that time, she said: “It will be 6 years before”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been answered. The member will resume her seat.

Bills

Health and Safety Reform Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 August.

Part 4 Enforcement and other matters (continued)

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The House is in Committee on the Health and Safety Reform Bill. When we were last debating this bill, the Committee was debating Part 4. Clayton Mitchell had the call, and he has 2 minutes remaining.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Goodness me, those 2 minutes are going to fly by, so I might need to go and seek another call on this.

Part 4 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill is a very, very important part, with only two Supplementary Order Papers on the Table: one from the Māori Party, from Marama Fox; and one, of course, from Labour, from Iain Lees-Galloway. New Zealand First will stand and support the Supplementary Order Paper initially by Iain Lees-Galloway, because, in our opinion, it does give some protection to those people who are, potentially, going to be disenfranchised if the regulators decide not to prosecute for practices. Essentially, what clause 167B does—and I am going to read it out to you here—is give an extension of 6 months after the date on which the regulator announces a decision not to prosecute, in order to go for an extension if they want to go for a private prosecution. I think that is absolutely fundamental to ensuring that true justice is actually upheld, and it is fundamentally part of what I think this bill actually stands for.

Today is a bit like Groundhog Day in so far as last week we spoke about some of the other concerns that we have with the bill, and they are relating to enforcement matters. We have noted that in Budget 2015, $8 million has been put aside for enforcement officers, and we would like to have some assurance from the Minister that these labour enforcement officers are not going to be there as revenue collectors to try somehow to ingratiate a positive surplus at the expense of small and medium sized businesses throughout the country. There are some concerns out there in business that this is, in fact, what they are going to do. Eight million dollars per annum over the next 4 years—that is $32 million—is a fair whack, and the concern of those people is to make sure that enforcement officers are not just out there slapping infringement fine after infringement fine and ticket after ticket, and so forth. [Bell rung] Look at that. Nobody jumped up, Mr Chair.

I would like to continue by talking about some of the other parts of the bill that we do actually look to support. There are some parts in this bill—I will just flick to the right page—that are to do with Part 4. Take clause 122: “Meaning of notice”. We have got “improvement notice” in clause 122(a)(i), and “prohibition notice”, “non-disturbance notice”, and “suspension notices” in subclause (a). They come with some fairly reasonable sized fines. I do have to say that if there are ongoing examples of workers, persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs), or bosses not acknowledging safety concerns, they could actually be levied with those fines. It is $50,000 per person, or up to $250,000 for “any other person”, which I am assuming would be the boards or, in large organisations, the group directorships.

This bill is about showing openness, compliance, and the ability to see what is going on. Knowing what is happening within workplaces and actually having enforcement officers in there, enabling them to manage those problems in a business, is absolutely fundamental, so we do actually support parts of Part 4. I hope that there are some people ready to take a call, and I will certainly be taking some more calls as we go on later on today. I will actually restate that we do have some concerns. When you look at the fact that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has more public relations people than health and safety representatives—that needs to change as well, not only in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment but also around the country, particularly in our mines and quarries, etc., throughout the country. Mr Chair, I look forward to taking another call very shortly. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): As members who have participated in the debate so far have noted, this is a very important bill, and in a bill such as this, the enforcement provisions are some of the most important parts of the bill. If we are going to have effective health and safety provisions, requirements, and obligations, then it follows that we need to have effective enforcement requirements as well.

Part 4 of the bill has prohibition notices, improvement notices, non-disturbance notices—all the paraphernalia that you would ordinarily expect and require in a bill of this type, dealing with this sort of material. What I do not see in the bill—and perhaps the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety can answer this question when he takes a call—is what allows a small business of maybe six or a dozen employees to be distinguished from a large corporate employer, or a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU), as it is now to be known. What guidance is there for WorkSafe inspectors and WorkSafe staff on the way that they are to approach small and medium sized businesses, as opposed to the large corporates? I would just say that had the Minister tried harder and worked harder with parties in Parliament to deal with this issue, as it ties back into the setting of obligations and the workplace representation issues, which have been well canvassed and well debated, then it might well be that we would have had a more well-rounded approach to enforcement than what appears in the legislation at the moment.

This highlights an issue that I think is important to a lot of people: there is no point in having gilt-edged enforcement procedures—various notices; being able to resort to the Court of Appeal; giving not only WorkSafe but also private citizens, workmates, and the union that may be involved in the workplace the right to prosecute—if they are not also based on a foundation of good, effective workplace representation. The problem with some of the enforcement provisions in here is that, good as they are on paper, they will come to nothing if a WorkSafe inspector going into the workplace and dealing with an alleged transgression does not have a starting point, which is the workplace rules themselves, the workplace culture, the representation structures, and the people in the workplace involved in health and safety. To that extent, it may well be that absent some guidance about how smaller businesses are to be dealt with, what might otherwise be good enforcement measures are simply not as effective. This goes to the heart of the matter.

The reason why the Labour Party is so concerned about this legislation is that we had this opportunity to get the whole package right—to get the obligations right, to get the form of representation and the guidance about workplace culture right, and to get the enforcement provisions right as well. The sad thing is that without any movement—without any dialogue or further discussion with the Minister and his party, and, indeed, other parties—we may well end this part of the lawmaking process and come back to the third reading to see a bill that is less adequate, and certainly less effective, than it might otherwise have been if a moment had been taken to address the issues that, clearly, the Minister has been trying to address in the past few weeks.

It is vital that we get this stuff right, particularly in those industries that have the worst track records for health and safety, in those industries that have the largest number of ACC claims, and in those industries where we see the largest number of fatalities and the largest number of serious harm accidents. It is vital that we get the workplace structures, rules, and obligations right and that we get the enforcement right as well. There is no point in having the power to give improvement notices, the power for workplace inspectors to come in and give prohibition notices, the power to give non-disturbance notices, or the power to go to the District Court for enforcement orders, if the underlying foundation of those enforcement provisions is weak or if the workplace structures are non-existent, as they will invariably be in some workplaces.

I call upon the Minister once again, while we have a few hours of the Committee stage of this bill left, to think very carefully and to see that we can make these improvements if he has a willingness to do so. The last thing we need at the end of the third reading stage is a piece of legislation in which New Zealand no longer has any confidence. That is not acceptable, and I invite the Minister to tell us how effective these enforcement measures are going to be if we do not get the other provisions in the bill right.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to speak specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 101, which is in my name, and Supplementary Order Paper 107, which is the name of Marama Fox. They both seek to amend clause 167B, which is found in Part 4 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. They make important amendments to the limitation period for bringing a private prosecution. They have been proposed by the two of us because of the interaction of the various clauses relating to limitation periods for prosecution—that is, clause 167 and clause 167A through to clause 167C.

It is a bit of a technical loophole, but it is an important one for the Committee to address, because the way that those various clauses interact means that WorkSafe has, essentially, 2 years in which to bring a prosecution. So if WorkSafe determines that there has been a breach of the Health and Safety Reform Bill and that it may meet the criteria for bringing a prosecution, it has got 2 years to decide whether or not to bring that prosecution. At the same time, those who are wishing potentially to bring a private prosecution in the event that WorkSafe decides not to prosecute also have a 2-year limitation. Actually, WorkSafe initially has 12 months in which to bring its prosecution, but it can apply for up to an additional 12 months.

If WorkSafe takes just the 12 months that it is ordinarily able to take under clause 167 and if it decides after that 12 months that it is not going to take a prosecution, then anybody wishing to take a private prosecution has 12 months in which to take that prosecution. That is perfectly acceptable. We are certainly very comfortable with that. However, if WorkSafe applies for and receives an additional 12 months and then takes the full 12 months and decides not to prosecute, then there is no time remaining for anybody to take a private prosecution. It may be rare for this to occur, and it may be unlikely for this to occur, but it is certainly possible for this to happen under the legislation as it is written. WorkSafe could decide not to prosecute and nobody else would have the right to prosecute either.

What I have proposed under Supplementary Order Paper 101 is for there to be a 6-month extension, so that from the point that WorkSafe decides not to prosecute, there would be a 6-month window in which a private prosecution could be taken. I took this proposal to members around the House, one of whom was Marama Fox, on behalf of the Māori Party, and I understand that as a result—Marama Fox certainly indicated that the Māori Party could support that proposal from the Labour Party—of negotiations with that Government party, perhaps because the National Party could not bring itself to support a Labour amendment, the Māori Party has proposed a 3-month extension. I think that that is a little short, to be honest. I think that 6 months gives a fair window for a private prosecution to be brought, but, certainly, introducing a 3-month window is an improvement on the situation that we have right now.

Private prosecutions are actually incredibly important. They are an important check on the regulator. We have had two important examples recently of where WorkSafe and its predecessor organisations decided not to prosecute and the Council of Trade Unions decided that it would take a private prosecution. That was an important step, because in two cases that the courts have actually decided on recently, the private prosecution brought by the Council of Trade Unions was successful. In fact, it was with incredible ease that the prosecution was successful. It was with so much ease that there is a considerable question mark hanging over the decision of the regulator not to pursue prosecution. It was an important check on the regulator, saying, actually, that these were two important cases where the regulator ought to have pursued prosecution. Whether the regulator thought that it was unlikely that it would get a decision in its favour or whether it thought it was going to be too costly—I do not know what drove the decision not to prosecute. Clearly, the ease with which the Council of Trade Unions got successful prosecutions should give WorkSafe pause for thought.

In my view, that is the system working. We need to have that check on the regulator to actually be able to expose those instances where the regulator, frankly, gets it wrong, and it gives it an opportunity to learn from it so that in future, when it has the decision in front of it about whether or not to prosecute, it will be able to look back on the results of those private prosecutions and perhaps pursue a different course of action. It would be a shame if we found ourselves in the situation that is currently possible, with the clauses drafted in the fashion that they are, that a private prosecution could not be taken.

Just recently, we had the case of loader driver Charles Finlay, who in 2013 was crushed to death by a log while he was working in the dark. WorkSafe investigated but said that it could not find enough evidence of wrongdoing to prosecute the 45-year-old’s employer, M&A Cross Ltd. But M&A Cross Ltd actually pleaded guilty. That was how easy it was to get a prosecution. When the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions took a private prosecution, the employer actually pleaded guilty immediately. So I think that is a clear demonstration that WorkSafe got that one wrong. Also, Puketi Logging, the employer of 19 year-old forestry worker Eramiha Pairama, was found guilty of a charge under the Health and Safety in Employment Act relating to his death in 2013. The employer was found to have failed to take all practicable steps to provide its employee with a safe working environment, and, particularly, to ensure that he was not exposed to the dangers of work while being expected to manage on his own. These are two important cases that the Council of Trade Unions has taken and has been successful with.

We on this side of the House see this ability to take private prosecutions as an absolutely vital component of the overall system. Obviously, the regulator, WorkSafe, plays an important role in enforcing the law, but we also have to have the ability—especially for the likes of the unions—to be able to play our part in enforcing the law as well. When WorkSafe fails in its duty or just makes a wrong call—I am not saying that there is any dereliction of duty on the part of WorkSafe; just a decision that turned out in the long run to be the wrong one—there should be the ability for the Council of Trade Unions, or anyone else for that matter, to take a private prosecution.

I strongly urge members to support my amendment. I think the 6-month window is a more appropriate approach to take, but, certainly, my understanding is that the Government plans to support the amendment in the name of Marama Fox. I am glad that by proposing the 6-month window, we have been able to manoeuvre the Government into supporting a 3-month window, which is certainly an improvement on the current situation. It is a shame that we were unable to settle this in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I thought, for a period of time, that this was going to be settled there, but unfortunately it was rejected by the MPs. I do urge members to support preferably my Supplementary Order Paper but certainly Marama Fox’s Supplementary Order Paper on this matter.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I am grateful that I have the opportunity to take a call because very shortly I am due in another select committee to debate some very hefty issues about the Rugby World Cup, but this has far more gravitas. So I am pleased to be here today, specifically to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 107 in regard to Part 4 and clause 167.

Mr Lees-Galloway has articulated the technicalities of the issue correctly. If WorkSafe is investigating an accident or a tragedy, as the case may be, it has 12 months in which to produce its report and make a decision about whether it will take a prosecution or take action against the employer. It can apply to have a further 12 months, and, in that case, as has been articulated, a family will not be able to take a private prosecution because their time to do so will have run out. We have been working with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety over a number of things that we have been trying to get through, and this is one of them. So Supplementary Order Paper 107 is intended to give families an extension of 3 months—a 3-month window in which to lodge their claim.

Given that you have got 2 years following a tragic circumstance or some sort of serious injury to investigate and to hear the findings and also to prepare yourself, we think that 3 months is actually an adequate time to lodge that claim. Six months would have been better, given a little less urgency to putting this bill through, but I suppose that a family or an individual in a private circumstance would have prepared themselves for the possibility of taking that action and would be ready to lodge it. So I feel that 3 months is actually an adequate amount of time.

In being able to do that and work with the Government, I think it is fair to say that, far from being all over the place, as has been articulated by the Labour leader, we have been very clear about what we wanted to do with this Government. We have worked with the Minister to try to strengthen parts of the legislation—in this case, Part 4—to ensure that there is some strength over the issues that we also have concerns about. We have articulated those clearly with the Minister and we have worked very well with his officials to try to see those things through. In this case, yes, it is around the extension to the time that a family member can take that claim.

I think the other thing that we have talked about that will not show up here in Part 4 is the proactive nature of WorkSafe—to encourage WorkSafe to, in fact, work more with employers and with employees about articulating exactly what their rights are and to ensure that they know where their procedures for health and safety are, where they can be found, who they can go to, and what can happen if they are unhappy with those things. I think we do not want to always have the big stick, and I am pretty sure that WorkSafe does not always want to be the big stick, at the end of a process where things are found to be disruptive, where things are found to be inadequate, or where people have been injured—or, hopefully, not—and also where people have been killed. It does not just have to be the big stick. We would rather that there was a proactive engagement with WorkSafe, with our employees, and with our workers at the shop face. Yes, we think that this bill could have been strengthened in a few places, and we have worked hard to do that.

I am happy to put Supplementary Order Paper 107 forward. I think 3 months is an adequate amount of time. I am not going to talk any longer on it—I do not think we need to labour the point. I think Mr Lees-Galloway has articulated the technicalities of the issue adequately, so I just wanted to speak and give clarity to that and give the reasons why we have decided to put up this amendment to make it 3 months if the one for 6 months is unsuccessful, but I think that would be enough time for family members to bring a private prosecution. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call for the Greens on Part 4 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. I too want to speak about Supplementary Order Paper 101 in the name of Ian Lees-Galloway and also Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of Marama Fox, both of which are dealing with clause 167B in Part 4 of the bill. I just want to remind the Committee that last week it was frequently quite emotional being in the Chamber, and I think that was actually a rational response to the grief that is still being felt by the forestry families and the Pike River families, who were in the gallery. The fact is that we are discussing a bill that has a huge impact on the safety and lives of families of workers, and these people were here wanting to see an improvement in the existing law. I think it was right that we gave them the due respect and treated it with the gravitas that it deserved. I am mentioning it now because it is this part of the bill, clause 167, that deals with private prosecution.

I just wanted to note that some of those families cannot be here today, but it was Selina, who is the mum of Eramiha Pairama—and is someone whom I spoke to last week—who I think had the most impact on me, really, when she spoke about wanting to see a bill that would keep people like her son safe at work. In her case, or in the case of her son, who was killed at work—a 19-year old boy who was killed at work—WorkSafe, the regulator, decided not to prosecute in that case, as we have heard, but the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions decided that it would. It has been supported by unions and, actually, by ordinary families across New Zealand so that it could take that case on.

My understanding is that under the existing health and safety laws, the regulator has a period of time—I think it is around about 6 months—in which it can decide whether to prosecute in these circumstances, as was the case with Eramiha, and it can apply for an extension. Then, when it has decided that it will not prosecute, there is only 1 month left for a private prosecution to be taken, and invariably there is a call for an extension of time. The change in the bill can be seen in some ways as a more positive step, in that it does say that WorkSafe now has up to 2 years to examine cases—severe cases, especially—and to decide whether it will take a prosecution. But, although it is giving extra time to WorkSafe, that may make it harder for the families to be able to decide whether to take a prosecution.

I do note that in the bill there is a clause that says you can go outside the time if there is fresh evidence, so there are some mitigating factors there. But I believe, and the Greens believe, we need to amend this, and we support Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper to give a 6-month period of time for families or other persons—in this case, it could well be the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, again—to decide whether they should be taking a private prosecution. I think that is reasonable, given the amount of investigation that has to happen, and then also the work that needs to be done to get a private prosecution ready. My understanding is that 6 months is not an unreasonable expectation of the time required.

Should Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper fail, we would, of course, support Marama Fox’s Supplementary Order Paper, which basically just reduces that time to 3 months. But I have to say, in terms of it being a huge win for the Māori Party, that, no, I do not see it as a massive step in the right direction. I mean, it is a good effort, but unless the Government actually agrees to it, then I do not see that it is a huge win.

I do note that the Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper on this part as well, which I think is actually just around ensuring that people can receive notice of a prosecution or be notified that there is an action being taken, and it says that they can receive it by mail or within 7 days, and then it will be deemed that they have received it. Honestly, do we need that kind of massive amount of effort put into such a simple little thing, when there are huge gaps in this bill that really need to be addressed and that are not being addressed?

We will be supporting these parts of the bill. I want to reiterate that we do continue to have concerns and we will not be supporting the bill in its entirety. We certainly do have concerns around the offences and the inequities in the sentencing of prosecutions from offences that may have occurred with the mishmash of criminal law and employment law. But I believe that if we, as a Parliament, can agree to support Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper, then we will have got some movement. It would be really good to see that because I think, as the Leader of the Opposition has said in the last couple of days, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right, and so far we have not.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Part 4. The part of the bill that I would like to speak about is different from the part that members have been talking about thus far. I would like to talk about the appointment and powers of inspectors. This is something that comes up a lot in the businesses that I have been visiting and talking to talk about health and safety. They have certainly been turning their attention to these issues.

The issue that small businesses and small to medium sized businesses are raising is the balance of power, or getting the balance right, with regard to inspectors between a punitive enforcement approach and an enabling, supportive advice type of approach. What a lot of people are raising with us is that they want to be compliant, they want to adhere to the law, and they want to do the right thing. What they actually want is some support to enable them to meet all of the obligations under the legislation.

Businesses see a positive role for inspectors coming in, pointing out the areas where businesses need to improve, and actually taking a proactive, enabling, and supporting role. However, certainly if you read this section of the bill around who the inspectors may be and what their powers may be, it certainly suggests quite a punitive approach to the role of an inspector. If we want to talk about the culture change that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety spoke about in earlier parts of the debate, surely the role of the inspectors can also be a positive one.

There is no doubt whatsoever that these punitive measures that are here are important and that, in fact, we want to ensure that the inspectors have the powers that are listed here, but we also want to ensure that they have the ability to play a more constructive role in providing businesses—and any organisation, in fact—with advice on how they can do better and where they can do better. I just wonder whether the Government is giving sufficient attention to getting that balance right. Does it simply see the inspectors as being that kind of last-ditch approach, saying: “Here are all the things you’re doing wrong.” and taking the prosecutions, or whatever, rather than helping to effect the culture change?

Under clause 181(1)(b), I note that the regulator may, in writing, appoint as an inspector any employee of the State services. I wonder whether the Minister could elaborate for us some practical examples of where he thinks that kind of power may be used.

The area that I am really interested in is around education, because a lot of schools are grappling with their obligations under this legislation. At the moment, the primary inspector of schooling, and early childhood education as well, is the Education Review Office. So would, for example, the Government envisage that the inspectors, or the people conducting Education Review Office visits to educational establishments, may have the powers under this legislation to also be inspectors for the purposes of the Health and Safety Reform Bill? That could have some positives and some negatives. It could change the nature of the relationship between the educational institutions and those bodies, but that could be in a positive way and also in a negative way.

I want to give the Minister an example that was raised with me specifically today, and that is around school science labs and their use of chemicals. At the moment, many schools use chemicals in their science labs, and the storage practices are quite variable. The schools actually want to comply, but there is not a heck of a lot of enforcement or a heck of a lot of advice given to schools on this. I understand it is something that the Education Review Office used to inspect but no longer does.

Therefore, would the Government envisage that being the sort of reason that clause 181(1)(b) might actually come into force? So the Education Review Office is delegated the responsibility, for example, to actually be the health and safety inspector—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is clause 181(1)(a).

CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, clause 181(1)(a)—under clause 181(1)(a), because they are a department, not part of the State services. I thank the Chairperson. Would the Government envisage that an Education Review Office inspector, for example, would be given that power?

Schools want to comply, but I think we would all agree that there are some significant risks involved here around the use of—I have mentioned science labs and their use of chemicals. Other examples may be workshops within schools. They have very dangerous machinery that they are using within workshops. Is that the sort of example that the Government may see being used here?

I note, as I go through, when we talk about the powers of entry and inspection, when we talk about the power to take samples and objects and other things, and when we talk about the power to deal with the cause of imminent danger, these are all powers that very much suggest that the inspectors are dealing with a case where things are already wrong and there are things that we want to stop or things that may even result in negligence or cases of prosecution, for example. But what happens when the organisation concerned, in this case a school, wants to comply and wants some proactive advice? How does the Government envisage that that would be given effect to by the inspectorate, or, in fact, does it not see the role of the inspectors as doing that at all?

I guess those are my questions to the Minister, and I will be interested in his answers in due course.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I rise to take a call on Part 4 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. I do hope that we are going to be able to have some comprehensive debate on this part of the bill, because it is a part of the bill that, because of decisions made in earlier parts, 25 percent of our workforce will be reliant on because they will not have access, when they request it, to a health and safety rep, who could actually be taking preventative actions in their workplace. Those are the workplaces that have fewer than 20 employees and that are deemed to be low risk—places like dairy farms and beef farms—and where people are blowing up buildings and demolishing them. These are apparently the sorts of workplaces that are now going to have to rely on Part 4 of the bill, because that is the part that actually outlines what the prosecutions are, what the offences are. This is now the domain, in Part 4, of labour inspectors. That is, effectively, what Part 4 talks about. This part contains all the things that labour inspectors can do. We have gone past the parts of the bill that are more preventative and that I would say are actually more proactive ways of managing health and safety, where health and safety reps could actually make a difference in their workplaces.

I want to focus on clause 123, “Power to issue improvement notices”. I guess that I want to extrapolate this out to include the prohibition notices and the non-disturbance notices that labour inspectors can also issue. I want to ask the question of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—particularly in terms of the power to issue improvement notices, noting that this is a power that only labour inspectors would have—as to how that would differ from the power that we have given health and safety reps under Part 3 to issue provisional improvement notices, and what the difference would be between those two things. I will have a go at explaining what my version is, and if I am wrong, then I would appreciate it if the Minister could rise to his feet and correct me.

My understanding is that under clause 92 in Part 3, which we have already passed, elected health and safety representatives can, if they have been trained, issue provisional improvement notices. Those provisional improvement notices can require, if the legislation has been contravened by the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU)—or, as some people would prefer to call them, the “BOSS”—the trained health and safety rep can issue a provisional improvement notice and require the PCBU to remedy whatever part of the legislation it is that they are contravening. They can issue one of these provisional improvement notices to prevent a likely contravention from taking place, and they can issue a provisional improvement notice to remedy the things or activities that would be causing the contravention.

The reason why I raise that is that surely it is going to be a better thing to happen in these workplaces—that a preventive measure happens—than clause 123 in Part 4, where things have got so bad that they have come to the attention of the Labour Group. I really want to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I know that the member is attempting to tie this to Part 4, but extensive discussions about why Part 3 methods are better than Part 4 and relitigating the decisions that have already been taken in Part 3 are out of order when we are in discussion about Part 4.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Chair. I am, of course, talking about the power of labour inspectors, under clause 123 in Part 4, to issue improvement notices. My question is really this—I am going to cut to the chase here—who is actually going to alert the labour inspector? Who is going to alert the labour inspector—these, I do not know; I think we have about 50 of them throughout the country, Minister? Something like that?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: They are called health and safety inspectors.

SUE MORONEY: Health and safety inspectors.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: There are about 350 of them.

SUE MORONEY: There are about 350 of them. How are they going to be on all of these dairy farms, all of these beef farms, all of these places where health and safety representatives do not exist because they are not allowed to exist, even if the workers ask for them? How are the health and safety inspectors employed by the Government going to learn of the things that are going wrong in order to get to them in time and prevent them—

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I did not want to cut across my colleague. This is a very important part of the legislation. I have just read an article online that talked of a case currently before the courts, where the owner of a forestry logging company is subject to prosecution—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is going to take care, is he not?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Absolutely—no, I will not go into the details. I think the principle is that the person involved thinks that they may be being set up as perhaps an example by a Government that has a new focus on health and safety. The point is that whatever we do in legislation and whatever we change here, the one thing that Kiwis want is fairness. So the devil is in the detail, and I know that people listening and watching may think that we are being pedantic about words and interpretations of words, but the fact is that we are trying to pass a piece of legislation that will provide not only safety and protection for all workers but also fairness for all employers. I think that that is equally the objective of the Labour Opposition, as it is of the Government.

Fairness and equity are important. When it comes to the issue of enforcement and other matters, and I am sure that it will be an issue that will be in a court of law, the question is whether the person before the court is getting a fair go or has, as has been pointed out in this debate, the decision to prosecute, which seems to be a somewhat subjective one given recent history—that is, the department decided that it could not proceed, yet the private prosecution by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions proved not only that it could have done that but also that it could have done so successfully.

I come back to Part 4, which is about enforcement and other matters. I would just like to go to a part of the bill that did kind of strike a few chords with me, and that is the limitation period for prosecutions. Some may see it as the “get out of jail free” clause. For the families of Pike River miners, this is a particularly pertinent area, where delays in the process have, effectively, rendered their inquiry—or their desperation, I guess, for some justice—null and void because the mine manager is unlikely to be taken to court at all.

As pointed out by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, limitation periods are really important. It is not only with big, terrible, tragic disasters like Pike River but also with other complex cases of accidents and perhaps deaths in the workplace that there will sometimes be quite a period of investigation. This bill does say “6 months after the date on which a coroner completes and signs a certificate of findings”, so there is some acceptance here that there must be some conclusion. If you look at a major disaster, you have, I guess, a recovery period—a royal commission in the case of Pike River—and then there are decisions by Government agencies or police about whether to prosecute. I think that Supplementary Order Paper 101, put forward by my colleague is, indeed, a very necessary one, so that at the point of decision by a Government agency, it does not, effectively, eliminate the right for private prosecutions to occur. As we have seen with the involvement of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, those prosecutions can be quite successful.

It is not that New Zealanders want utu or revenge, but we must ensure that there is a fair process of justice all through this health and safety legislation, as I say, to ensure that, firstly, we get proper protection for the workers, because that is our first and foremost objective, and then, should an accident occur, if indeed the employer or the person conducting a business or undertaking—or the “BOSS”, as my colleague Kelvin Davis says—has done all that they can, they are not unjustifiably taken through the courts and prosecuted. At the same time, anyone who does not do what they should do should rightfully be subject to the full force of the law and all of the provisions that are laid down in this legislation.

If I may ask, just going to new clause 178 here—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Damien O’Connor, with a warning to keep the focus tight on Part 4.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I appreciate that, Mr Chairperson. I know they are technical, but they are far-reaching clauses—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes, I understand that. The member has done better than some of his predecessors.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This clause is titled “State of mind of directors, employees, or agents attributed”. Although I was not part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—I imagine that there are some explanations and that maybe the Minister in the chair, Craig Foss, can explain these things—it is a little bit confusing here because it says: “in any civil proceedings under this Act”. It goes on to say: “it is necessary to establish the state of mind of that individual, it is sufficient to show that an employee or agent of the individual acting within the scope of his, her, or its actual or apparent authority,”. It then goes on to say: “In this section, state of mind, in relation to a person, includes the knowledge, intention, opinion, belief, or purpose of the person and the person’s reasons for that intention,”.

In summary—and I am not trying to be flippant—this is quite a subjective clause, in my view, and clarification will be needed to ensure that when applying it, any agency that is implementing the law does so in a fair and unbiased way. I am not sure whether this applies directly to a situation on a farm, but if you are looking at states of mind, I can assure you that farmers—particularly dairy farmers—who in the middle of spring are facing the dilemmas that they are at the moment will not be in what we may otherwise say is a balanced and sound state of mind. They are under pressure. They are under huge pressure, and I am not sure who is going to be the judge of whether they are in a sound state of mind when making decisions regarding workplace safety. It comes right back to a question that I asked, and, again, I am not being flippant, that in the case of farms—high risk, low risk, or whatever—does state of mind and the definition as laid down in new clause 178(3) leave the door open for subjective and, I guess, variable interpretations, which may mean that some farmers are going to get prosecuted or be subject to prosecution and others are not, depending on how stressed they are.

The absence of any workplace representative in a farm environment because of the Government’s changes may make huge changes and differences to that application there. I am assuming that if you have someone in a workplace who is an employee who has been delegated or appointed—or, indeed, has been elected—as the workplace health and safety representative, as an employee they will probably have less stress than the business owner. In the case of a farmer, as I said, at this time they will be very, very stressed. So the issue of how someone—a court of law or, ultimately, a judge—determines “state of mind, in relation to a person, [including] the knowledge, intention, opinion, belief, or purpose of the person and the person’s reasons for that intention, opinion, belief, or purpose.” is quite confusing when read out like that, but it is a clause in this bill that needs clarification.

Can I just go back to say that we believe, as I say, that every clause in this part of the bill needs to be clear in order to protect employers, and the protections for the employees are through other provisions of the bill that ensure representation and that ensure the right classification. So, those aside, this is about a fair go for employers. There will be people out there who think that the Opposition is seeking to protect only the employees. That is not the case. We have to have fair, effective, implementable, and reasonable workplace health and safety here, but it must be effective. My reading of this clause is that that does leave the door open for what is a very subjective question, which the Minister can answer, of state of mind and of who the person is who is going to be assessing that. Is it, indeed, a psychiatrist, or will it just be the implementing officer or the enforcement officer—or, indeed, will it be the employee?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is my pleasure to speak to Part 4 of this bill, on the enforcement provisions. These are worthy and necessary provisions, which are set out in Subpart 1,“Enforcement measures”; Subpart 2, “Remedial action”; Subpart 3, “Civil proceedings for non-compliance with notices”; and Subpart 4, “Enforceable undertakings”. And then it goes on to talk about reviews and appeals. All of this is the mechanical side of the enforcement of health and safety in the workplace, and because of the changes in this bill, it relies predominantly on the role of the inspectors. I think that I heard Sue Moroney say before that we have 50 inspectors.

Sue Moroney: Oh, I think the Minister said 350.

Iain Lees-Galloway: 300.

Hon PHIL GOFF: We have 300 or 350 inspectors. That is covering the workforce across the entire countryside. So for Part 4 of this bill to work, you have to have the inspectors who are out there being able, for example, to note a contravention, so that they can remedy it, or to note a dangerous situation, so that they can issue a prohibition notice. But that will not work unless the people who work in the workplace itself are there making sure from hour to hour, day to day, and week to week that the conditions in the workplace are safe. That is why this chance-of-a-lifetime piece of legislation has been undermined and destroyed by the Government, because it has taken away the fundamental role of the people who would otherwise enforce health and safety on the ground. We know that having health and safety representatives works. We have had them in the legislation before. This bill was going to bring those health and safety representatives to cover a much wider cross-section of the industry, and for reasons of bowing to pressure from narrow, self-interested groups that are guilty of contraventions of health and safety in the workplace, this legislation is not going to work.

Part 4 is very worthy, but it will not work, and it has not worked overseas. What the international experience has been in Australia, in the United Kingdom, and in other places is that health and safety legislation works when you have got good enforcement, when you have got responsible employers, and when you have got employees participating in the day-to-day safety of the workplace. It is a case of three legs to a stool. This is one leg of the stool, but without that third leg and without the people who are working on health and safety in the workplace, who are now excluded from the most dangerous parts of the workplace, which is the dairy farms, the cattle farms and the sheep farms—but not the worm farms; the worm farms will have the ability to have health and safety people working on the ground—without the people on the ground, without them working in cooperation with the employees, and without the ability of a union to come in and say “This is not safe, and somebody will lose their life.”, somebody will be maimed for life. We have got one of the worst records in the world. It does not work if you are relying on just the mechanical provisions in this part of the bill.

You have to have the active engagement of your workforce. So I want to ask the Minister in the chair, Craig Foss, if he is following the proceedings, why it is that we are not backing up these provisions with the active participation of people on the ground. If it is good enough for Australia to do across the Tasman, if it is good enough for the British to do, and if it is good enough in most other advanced Western countries to have a system that will actually work, why has the New Zealand Government gutted this piece of legislation? I have been listening to this debate, either in the Chamber or in my room, for the hours that it has been going on, and I have heard no explanation from any Minister in the chair as to why the Government has decided to gut the legislation.

We supported this legislation as it was introduced. This legislation as it was introduced was a response to the royal commission following the Pike River disaster. That was good legislation. It was legislation that followed the rulings of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. I want to know from the Minister, who is sitting in the chair without comment, why it is that you set up a task force, that you pay for a royal commission, that when there is a disaster like the Pike River disaster you pretend to be absolutely concerned and say that you will do everything possible so that it never happens again, and then 2 years on it is all forgotten? Two years on, the meaningful changes that would have occurred in this legislation have been ripped out of the legislation and we are left with just the mechanics of it.

I do not believe that the inspectorate can do the job by itself. I do not believe that there are enough inspectors. I do not believe that they are being given the support, and I do not believe that this legislation is going to make any meaningful change, which is necessary when we see a disaster of the proportions of Pike River. There are 29 people still entombed in the grave of that coal mine. The country came together. I was down there on the West Coast. The Prime Minister was down there. Other MPs were down there. Damien O’Connor was working down there. We came together and we said: “This is appalling. This is a totally unnecessary loss of life, and we must do something to prevent it from happening again.” This bill was born out of the task force and out of the royal commission, but the Government wobbled at the knees when it came back in and a handful of small business people and farmers said: “We can’t have this. It’s going to be awkward.”

We must have this if human life is to have the sanctity that the House should be according it. It does not matter how much we have got in this part of the bill in terms of prohibition orders, non-disturbance orders, and inspectors if we do not have the three parts of what is required to keep our people safe in the workforce and to make sure that when the men and the women in the workforce work there during the day, they are going to come home safe at night. I do not think it was too much to ask. In fact, I think that you would have got a consensus of opinion across the floor of this Chamber if this bill were doing the right thing.

So, yes, we will speak in favour of the particular provisions in Part 4, but, no, we do not believe that they are sufficient or adequate to actually make a difference. What everybody who has done research in this area has advised the House, what the task force has advised the House, and what the royal commission has advised the House, this Government has decided to withdraw from the bill. I would like the Minister in the chair to not sit there silently. I would like him to take the next call and to get up and say how these provisions will make a difference without the most important change, which his own Government introduced when it brought the bill to this House and said should happen. I would also like to know, since we have gutted this bill because of private discussions between the National Government and some of its supporters, why those discussions were not taken back to the select committee and why there has not been justification for the changes that have been made. This is serious legislation. There is no topic for this House to consider that is more serious than maintaining the health, safety, and well-being of New Zealand men and women in the workforce. Yet we are reduced now to looking at a partial bill.

I do want to speak, however, in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 101, in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway. We have found that WorkSafe New Zealand has often not taken prosecutions but that when taken privately by the Council of Trade Unions, those prosecutions have succeeded. Private prosecutions are critically important, and there needs to be at least 6 months between a decision by WorkSafe New Zealand to not prosecute and for individuals such as the Council of Trade Unions to put together a case to take to court—again, to protect men and women in the workforce. Six months is a reasonable period of time. I know that Marama Fox has got Supplementary Order Paper 107, through which the Government is looking to find a compromise of 3 months. It is not enough.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Part 4 does deal with enforcement in particular, and other matters. As colleagues have said, enforcement is just one component of this legislation. Enforcement is what happens when the other aspects have failed, really. It is what happens when the proactive efforts to work alongside employers to build good health and safety practices, when the efforts of workers and their representatives—when they are allowed to have them—to build good health and safety systems and to build a good relationship with the employer, fall down. That is when enforcement has to happen.

Actually, I do want to walk through some of the enforcement options that are available to the health and safety inspectors, because what we often hear—particularly from the farming community, which seems to be most vocal about this—is that the only time employers see WorkSafe New Zealand is when they show up to issue them with one of the enforcement notices that are available to them under this legislation: an improvement notice, a prohibition notice, a non-disturbance notice, or a suspension notice.

Of course, that is not how we want WorkSafe to operate. We want WorkSafe to be in there, alongside the employers—particularly in those high-risk and isolated industries like farming, like forestry, like fishing—actually out there working alongside them to get good practice in place before they have to show up with the big sticks that are available to them here in Part 4. But that comes down to a variety of things. One of them is actually ensuring that WorkSafe has the people on the ground and has the resources available to it to be proactive. If WorkSafe is under-resourced, then of course the only time it is going to show up is after something has gone wrong, to issue one of these notices.

Nevertheless, there is a sliding scale in this legislation. I think it is important for people to understand that there is actually a sliding scale, and that even when you get into these matters of enforcement you are not immediately being slapped with fines. You are not immediately being slapped with notices requiring you to stop what you are doing—depending on the nature of the breach.

But the first thing is improvement notices. Improvement notices can be given by an inspector who believes that a person is contravening a provision of this legislation or regulations, or is likely to contravene this legislation or its associated regulations. It requires the person to remedy the contravention and to remedy the things or activities causing the contravention or likely to cause a contravention. In other words, it says to the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU): “Look, this is going wrong. This is a breach, or is likely to cause a breach, of the Act. We want you to sort it out, and we’re going to give you time to sort it out.” In fact, it is a requirement of this legislation. It is a requirement of clause 124, in fact, that the improvement notice gives the PCBU a period of time to sort out whatever is going wrong. It is only if, after that period of time, they have not sorted things out, that they then become liable for the fines associated with non-compliance, which are laid out in clause 125.

So the first option for a health and safety inspector who sees something going wrong is not to go directly to fines, is not to go directly to prosecution; it is to actually say to the PCBU that they need to fix this, here is the opportunity to fix it, here in fact are some recommendations for how you can fix it, and here is how long you have, and we will be back after that period of time to come and see how you are doing. If WorkSafe is doing its job properly, of course, it will also work alongside the employer to support them to sort the issue out.

The next option that is available is a prohibition notice. This actually says that the employer has to stop an aspect of the work, so this is an advance on the position of the improvement notice. This says that actually you are doing something so serious that you need to stop that right now—stop now, and only once you have sorted it out can that particular aspect of the workplace start working again. [Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I will call Iain Lees-Galloway.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Thank you, Mr Chairman—I would hate to have been cut off at that point.

The next option is to issue a prohibition notice. That actually says you have got to stop what you are doing. But, then again, if you stop that work, sort the issue out, and the inspector comes back and can see that the issue has been sorted out, then work can start again. So it is not about going immediately to the big stick, but this Part 4 is about enforcement. What we would say on this side of the Chamber is that actually preventative measures should have started well before we get anywhere near any of these notices, whether it be a prohibition notice, whether it be a non-disturbance notice, or even a suspension notice. That is where the health and safety representatives can be really important. We do have only 300 health and safety inspectors. That might sound like a large number; it still does not meet the International Labour Organization guidelines for how many health and safety inspectors we should have.

And, let us face it, the New Zealand economy—we have heard a number of times from the Minister, in fact, how agriculture is the largest employer of people in New Zealand. What we have with agriculture is a large number of workplaces with, usually, small numbers of workers in quite isolated situations. It is the same with forestry, the same with fishing—some of our highest risk industries, the ones that kill and maim more people than any other industries, are often the hardest to reach. And this is the challenge for the inspectors. If they are to carry out their duties under Part 4 of this legislation, they have to be in many places at the same time. And that is the value of having people within the workforce who are trained and mandated to actually be the eyes and ears for WorkSafe, so that some of that preventative work can be done before we need to get to this point of issuing improvement notices, prohibition notices, or non-disturbance notices.

So although this particular part is about enforcement, we just see it as—I think Phil Goff said it is one leg on the three-legged stool. This leg is reasonably robust. Putting to one side the Supplementary Order Paper that I have put up around the issue of private prohibitions, otherwise we are reasonably comfortable with this part, but it is undermined by the failings in other parts of the legislation. But even with the enforcement in this, there is still an opportunity for PCBUs who have perhaps fallen foul of this part of the bill, who have not met their obligations under this bill, to rectify that well before they get anywhere near fines, well before they get anywhere near court proceedings.

I think that is an important point to make. There has been a lot of myth-making about what this legislation does. There is a lot of concern. There is a lot of fear out there amongst some of those industries, particularly those high-risk industries, that the first time they see a WorkSafe vehicle driving up their driveway they are about to be slapped with a fine. That should not be the case. The case should be that WorkSafe arrives on the farm, at the forest, or at the fishing vessel—or at any other workplace, for that matter—well before they get to this point. But even if WorkSafe does come on the farm and sees a breach of the legislation, there is ample opportunity for the employer to rectify the things that are going wrong, well before they risk being fined or being prosecuted.

I do not think that is well enough understood. I think that is a failing of the Government in its communication around this legislation that it has allowed that fearmongering to occur. It has allowed that concern to grow and grow and grow, particularly amongst small employers, that they are at risk of being slapped with very large fines and will not have the opportunity to put things right. That is simply wrong, and I would like the Government to say that a lot more loudly than it has been.

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair—I am really pleased you have given me the opportunity to speak on Part 4 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill because there is a very specific issue that I would like to raise with the Minister in the chair, the Hon Craig Foss. We would really appreciate some feedback on this important issue because it has been raised by the Law Society and as yet I have not heard it debated in this Parliament. As my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway mentioned, broadly speaking, Part 4 relates to enforcement provisions. Clause 180A of Part 4, “Proceedings involving classified security information” states “Schedule 2A contains provisions that apply in civil and criminal proceedings that involve classified security information.” So that takes us directly to schedule 2A, and that is what I would like to speak to in my contribution.

Schedule 2A relates to “Provisions relating to classified security information”. I think it is important to point out that this schedule, as I understand and as pointed out by the Law Society, was not present in the bill—it is contained in Supplementary Order Paper 108, which is obviously substantive—at the time that the bill was introduced to the House. By virtue of that, that means, as I understand, it would not have been subjected to any New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, as a bill upon introduction usually is subjected to. That means we have not had full consideration as to the broad, sweeping nature of this schedule, and certainly that is the point that the Law Society has made. It has not been the subject of a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. Officials, as I understand, have had this issue raised with them directly by the Law Society. The response that Government advisers gave back to the society was that it was their view that these provisions were narrow. I want to test that view with the Committee.

It states in schedule 2A “Application of this schedule” that “(1) This schedule applies to any criminal or civil proceedings (including public law and judicial review proceedings) that relate to the administration or enforcement of this Act, if—(a) all parties to the proceedings have access to classified security information that is to be produced or referred to in the proceedings; or (b) the defendant in proceedings intends to produce or refer to classified security information.” So what classified security information is and how it is defined is very important for the purposes of this legislation. According to the Law Society, its view is that the definition is very wide. The definition is stated in clause 3 of schedule 2, “Meaning of classified security information”. It states: “(1) In this schedule, classified security information means information—(aa) that is relevant to proceedings that relate to the administration or enforcement of this Act; and (a) that is held by a specified agency;”—and I believe with specified agencies we are talking security, intelligence, or law enforcement, New Zealand Defence Force, the Government Communications Security Bureau, New Zealand Police, or the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. It continues: “and (b) that the head of the specified agency certifies in writing [that it] cannot be disclosed except to the extent provided in clause 4 because, in the opinion of the head of the specified agency,—(i) the information is of a kind specified in subclause (2); and (ii) disclosure of the information would be disclosure of a kind specified in subclause (3).”

Then, when you go on to those, they basically say that—it is very hard to explain schedules—what is considered classified secure information is basically determined by the agencies that hold that information. They basically have the power to write to the court and say: “We don’t believe this information should be disclosed, because we determine”—they determine—“that it fits the criteria of this bill. It might lead to identification of a source of information. It might, if disclosed, give away the functions of security or intelligence. It might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or international relations. It might prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on the basis of confidence. It might prejudice the maintenance of the law.” In writing, that all sounds fairly robust, but if you are actually allowing those agencies to determine that for themselves, then that potentially becomes problematic. As the Law Society has pointed out, it has advised the Minister specifically—

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): It is my pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage on Part 4 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. I have been trying to find a clause in the bill that I could actually speak to that no one else has addressed, and I actually have a serious question for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner. It relates to clause 169, “Sentencing criteria”. I read in subclause (2)(e): “the degree of departure from prevailing standards in the person’s sector or industry as an aggravating factor;”. The reason I have brought that up is that I have been trying to find out what these prevailing standards are, so if the Minister could provide me with a definition of what prevailing standards are, I would really appreciate it.

The reason I would really appreciate that is that I want to acknowledge that WorkSafe put out a publication in April this year. It is titled Health and Safety Attitudes and Behaviours in the New Zealand Workforce: A Survey of Workers and Employers. It is a qualitative analysis, and it really focuses on the agricultural sector—so it is an agricultural report. The reason I really want to ask about the definition of prevailing standards is some of the findings in this report. What we know is that every year almost 100 people die in workplaces across New Zealand, and 94 percent of the people who die are men. They die in high-risk industries like forestry, construction, manufacturing, fishing, and the agricultural sector. The interesting analysis for me is that when I look at the characteristics of these industries, the report says that they are driven by pride and they are driven by masculinity and it is in a hierarchical context, people are under pressure, and it is becoming increasingly diverse.

But the other thing specifically in the agricultural space is that those people are independent and isolated, so we are talking about a group of people who, in some regards, have—and I will quote again from this report, which says that: “Health and Safety is considered important but something that can get in the way of day-to-day farming. Unpredictability of agricultural work may foster a fatalistic attitude”. So the people who work in the agricultural sector actually have an attitude that things just happen that cannot be changed. I think that, actually, the whole intention and focus of this legislation is to change things, and it is to make sure that 100 people a year—mostly men—are not dying in the workplace. When we are faced with these attitudes of the people who work in these industries themselves, I guess I am now highlighting that the prevailing standard or attitude within a sector is actually this one of a fatalistic idea of the work space. And, actually, the whole reason we want somebody in power to be a health and safety representative is so we can change these attitudes.

How are we going to change the attitudes of a sector where we know that many of them are dying? That is what I want to know, because if this piece of legislation is not going to be part of changing those attitudes, attitudes that are actually killing people—they are killing husbands, they are killing fathers, they are killing grandfathers, and they are killing brothers. No one has really talked about the gender implications of this piece of legislation. This legislation is about our men, which is why we saw the women come here, crying and holding their husband’s photos. Families have been wrecked, and I just do not understand what is happening, given where this legislation came from.

That is my question to the Minister in the chair: what is going to happen, then, if the prevailing standard or attitude in these sectors means that it is OK for people to die? How is WorkSafe actually going to change that outcome? Are we going to tolerate it and say: “Hey, it’s OK. We’re OK with 100 people dying every year because, you know, the people who work in the sector have got this fatalistic attitude that some of them are just going to die.” Is that acceptable? What this legislation actually says is: “Yes, it is. It is acceptable. We as a country accept that 100 people”—

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 77

New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 44

New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 44.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 101 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to clause 167B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 in the name of Marama Fox to clause 167B be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members, we come now to Part 5, a debate on clauses 205 to 239 and schedule 3, including the Minister’s amendments and amendments proposed by Clayton Mitchell.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Part 5 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill is rather innocuously titled “Miscellaneous provisions”. It certainly does contain miscellaneous provisions of quite a varied nature but many of them are quite substantive, and I expect there will be quite a lot of debate about a number of the clauses contained in this part.

I would like to direct my first contribution towards clause 224, “Regulations relating to worker engagement, participation, and representation”. This deals with a number of aspects of worker engagement, and the first of those is the requirements for determining a work group. Work groups are the way the employer can structure their workplace for the purposes of worker representation, and we have certainly had some discussion about the fact that health and safety representatives actually represent only the workers in their work group. It may be that an entire workplace or an entire worksite is one whole work group or it may be that the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) decides to separate out different parts of the workplace or their business into different work groups. This is an important part of this piece of legislation. It is possible—and this is referred to under clause 224(a)(i)—to have work groups for workers carrying out work for two or more PCBUs.

This is a really important concept—the idea that in one workplace there may be multiple PCBUs—and it does actually make sense sometimes to structure the workplace in a fashion so that you have workers from different PCBUs in the one work group, potentially with one or more health and safety representatives representing those members of that work group. It may be that despite the fact that they come from a number of different PCBUs—a number of different employers—they might be doing similar work and their interests are shared, and it makes sense for those workers to be represented by a health and safety representative representing all of their shared interests. What clause 224 does is it allows the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to make on the recommendation of the Minister regulations relating to the requirements for determining a work group and the agreements or variations of agreements relating to the determination of work groups.

We have expressed some concern on this side of the Chamber about the nature of the agreements around work groups. We have expressed some concern about the fact that work groups could be structured in a fashion so as to limit the influence of health and safety representatives and to limit the number of people working on a worksite or for an employer who has access to a health and safety representative. So, in fact, the regulations that can be made under clause 224 are going to be very important, I think, for ensuring that there is appropriate agreement between the workers and the PCBU around the structure of those work groups. We want to have a bit more clarity around the nature of that agreement included in the law, but, obviously, this is part of the regulation-making power as well.

It will be important to get that right. We do not want to see work groups being used as a tool to limit the authority and the influence of health and safety representatives. We totally understand why it is appropriate to have work groups. It certainly will be appropriate for businesses that have work of quite a different nature to have work groups. You might have some people working in an office, and then some people working in a distribution centre, and their needs, as far as health and safety are concerned, are going to be quite different, and it makes sense to separate them into separate work groups and for them to be represented appropriately.

Again, perhaps for some of the chain stores that have a store in every city it makes sense for the health and safety representative to represent the workers in a particular store, not necessarily the workers across the whole business—so that makes sense. But the concern we had was that in the way the law was written it was possible for the small number of fringe employers—and I think some of us in this Chamber know the types of people we are talking about and the types of industries we are talking about—to use that ability to structure those work groups in a fashion that deliberately undermines health and safety representatives, because they just do not believe in health and safety representatives. So we think the regulation-making power in clause 224 is actually going to be quite important and we would like to see the Government ensure through regulation that there is genuine agreement between the workers and the PCBU about that work group structure.

Clause 224(b) relates to “prescribing matters relating to health and safety representatives, including—(i) the eligibility criteria for election as a health and safety representative: (ii) the procedure for electing or removing a health and safety representative:”. Again, this is going to be very important. If the health and safety representative system is going to work appropriately, yes, we do need people who are appropriately qualified to discharge their duties. We also need to make sure, again, that this is not used to unnecessarily limit who is able to put their name forward to be a health and safety representative. Ultimately, of course, we are talking about elected health and safety representatives who have to have the confidence of the people who are working around them, and the people working around them will know whether or not that person is likely to be able to discharge their duties well.

So the first eligibility criterion, and I think the most important eligibility criterion, is the confidence of their workmates, and that is, of course what the democratic process is all about—that the person who should be elected to that position should be someone who does have the confidence of their workmates. But, obviously, it is important that we ensure that people have the right skills and the right ability to carry out the functions of that task. As for the procedure for electing or removing a health and safety representative, in terms of electing a health and safety representative my view is that it should be over to the workers as to what process they want to use and what process they want to conduct to elect a health and safety representative.

When it comes to removing a health and safety representative, well, we have some concerns about the fact that a PCBU can now actually ask WorkSafe to remove a health and safety representative, and if WorkSafe says “No, that health and safety representative is doing their job just fine.”, then the PCBU can now refer that to the District Court. That, I believe, will definitely be used by some employers as a threat against people who put their names forward as health and safety representatives—that they will end up tied up in lengthy litigation, and they will end up in the District Court simply because those employers are ideologically opposed to health and safety representatives and they want to make life as difficult as possible.

The next regulation-making power, in clause 224(b)(iii), is “the eligibility criteria to vote for a health and safety representative:”. Again, we have to be very, very careful to make sure that this is not too restrictive. The people who should be able to vote for a health and safety representative are anybody in the work group that that health and safety representative will be representing. Representatives hold that position because they are given that mandate by the people who work around them. They should have the confidence of the people who work around them, and that should be everybody who works around them.

I do not want to see this regulation-making power being used to exclude some people from being able to elect a health and safety representative. I would like to have some assurances from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner, that none of those issues that we have raised around eligibility criteria for being a health and safety representative, the eligibility criteria for electing a health and safety representative, and the way in which regulations are going to be made about the structure of work groups are going to be used to undermine the health and safety representative system and that none of those are going to be used to limit the influence and the authority of health and safety representatives. Ultimately, we as Parliament are handing that over to the Government, and we are trusting that it will get it right. We need some assurances from the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members, I am sorry to interrupt the debate. Earlier the Committee was asked to vote on the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108. I incorrectly gave the result of that vote as 67 to 44. In actual fact, it was 77 in favour and 44 against.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on Part 5, “Miscellaneous provisions”. We do actually have a couple of things to talk to and, in fact, we have got two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 110.

I would just like to start by commending some of the words that the speaker previous to me, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway, has just said. He brought up the work groups as being of some concern. We spoke earlier about those work groups, the appointment of those work groups, whether there is any sort of ambiguity about how we are going to determine what those work groups are going to look like, and what they are going to consist of. We actually had an amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 110 to do that, which was, of course, an amendment to clause 66 in Part 3, but we have sort of moved on from that now. It was unfortunate that we did not get the support from Labour for that, because that would have addressed this issue about getting WorkSafe to resolve any issues as an independent arbitrator in that instance.

Now I would like to move on to what we have some concerns about and we have got two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 110 to help amend. It relates to clause 227, “Further provisions relating to regulations”. We have had some fantastic discussions in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about some of this, but we have also gone out and done a lot of research with the people that this section may well and truly affect. We are talking about Federated Farmers. There is a united front there that have some concerns about this part and its provisions, and hence we have put our provision forward.

What the bill has got here under further provisions in clause 227(1) is: “Regulations made under this Act may—(aa) impose similar or additional duties on a person in relation to the same circumstances as this Act does: (a) be of general or limited application:”. The parts that concern us are subclause (1)(d), “apply differently to people of a differing age or health status, and may apply only to people of a particular age or health status:”, and subclause (1)(e), “apply differently to different classes of person, workplace, plant, structure, substance, or kind of risk:”.

The issues that this may raise are in relation to a workplace that is not considered dangerous—you know, sharemilking is not considered dangerous, nor is farming and the like—but it is where you have got a father and son or a family member going out to feed out or to make hay. As in many other cases, I was one of those young children on the farm. I used to drive the tractor for the farmer, who was, actually, a very close friend, and I used to work with his sons. This clause may well stop that from happening, if the children are under the age of 15 years old.

It may also have an effect if you consider working in a takeaway, for example. If a chip fryer was seen to be dangerous plant or equipment, which, of course, it could be because of very, very hot oil and fat, that clause may actually preclude young people from actually working in those fish and chip shops and the like. The clause goes on, and may have some implications around young people working on, goodness me, a lavender farm, or even working in a butterfly factory. I say that with a pinch of a smile, but it certainly does have some issues.

What we are proposing here is to replace clause 227(1)(d) with our amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 110, which says: “apply differently to people of a differing age, but only in respect of machinery or equipment, and may only apply to people of a particular age:”. So this “particular age” may be different to what the other ages are saying of a much younger age. And, of course, we also have in proposed new paragraph (da) that it will “apply differently to people of a differing health status or physical capability, and may apply only to people of a particular health status or physical capability:”.

We see this as being a serious issue in and around some of those workplaces, particularly in farming situations, where, of course, young family members are actually involved in the day-to-day running of that farm. It may also include those persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU), the workers, the bosses, the parents of young children who go and, of course, do work experience in deemed dangerous areas such as a workshop, if it is a building workshop or something of the like or somewhere where there are hazardous substances around. I do not think we should be precluding that work experience and that engagement with those young people and stop them from entering those workplaces, as I think that will have a detrimental effect in the long term.

We have another amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 110, which is to clause 227(2). This here is about well-intentioned actions, if you like. Say you have a situation where you are working on a farm and you have clocked off for the day and you are driving home and you see that one of the sheep may have escaped inadvertently. You pull over to the side of the road and with good intentions, although you are off the clock, you actually try to remedy the situation by getting that animal back into its pen or back into the place where it should be.

Under this bill at the moment, that could actually put the boss, the PCBU, and the worker—albeit they are not on the clock—in a situation of getting a fine or getting into trouble or, basically, being in breach of this condition. What we would suggest is that we would put in this proposed new subclause 227(3): “Regulations made under this Act may not hold people liable for any consequences arising from well-intentioned voluntary acts.” So in the event that there was an accident getting that stock from the road, or there was a problem with getting that stock and the worker got hurt, that would preclude the PCBU—the boss, if you like—and the worker from any legal action or any wrongdoing or being culpable in any way.

I think there is a lot of what has been put forward in this Health and Safety Reform Bill that actually does work, and I think, in general terms, it will work. However, I think that it could be done a lot better, and I think that if we could actually get some support for a number of these amendments from the Government, we would actually see happier people out there—the people who are actually working and living and breathing this. Some sensible, sound Supplementary Order Papers and amendments would actually go a long, long way.

We are disappointed that we have not got a number of our amendments supported to date. Again, here is another piece of sound, common-sense advice that we are putting forward that would actually make a huge difference in the long run to make this legislation more palatable as it goes through today. Thank you very much for your time.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): To start with, I would like to talk about clause 217. This is about a funding levy. The thing that concerns me slightly is that what clause 217 basically does is set out the terms and conditions under which the Crown can actually charge an employer for WorkSafe undertaking its duties. So it is a form of user-pays, I suppose. At the moment, as we all know, employers do pay an ACC levy, and that is fair enough—

Hon Member: And a tax.

STUART NASH: And a tax. It is a form of tax; there is no doubt about that. But what we are finding at the moment, as the Minister for ACC—who is actually in the Chamber at the moment—has said, is that the ACC pot is incredibly full at the moment. So she has proudly made the announcement that she is dropping a whole lot of ACC levies—

Sue Moroney: It’s too late.

STUART NASH: —it is far too late—for a number of employers. But what we have here, under clause 217, is the opportunity for the Minister to actually raise those levies once again. But the thing is that this is going to be collected by ACC, and there are a number of terms and conditions under which this can be brought in.

Let me talk about clause 217(7)(a). What this is about is certain Crown costs. What can happen is that the Minister can determine that a levy is charged, it says here, for “certain Crown costs” and may determine “WorkSafe carrying out its functions under any enactment:”. What I would like to know is whether, in fact, this is going to be mandatory and whether this is going to be put in place, because the way that it is worded in this legislation is that it is. What it says is: “WorkSafe carrying out its functions under any enactment:”, and the way that I read that—you know, we all want a great WorkSafe. We all want an engaged WorkSafe and we absolutely require a number of inspectors to be out there making sure that businesses, companies, and employers are meeting their statutory obligations—that is a given. But the way this reads is that the employers are going to be charged for this.

It also says that “the Crown administering”—this is another condition under which the levy can be imposed; we are talking about paragraph (c)—“the relevant health and safety legislation:”, and also for “collecting the funding levy”. So you can charge people a funding levy for collecting the funding levy, and, in fact, what can happen is that ACC can then charge WorkSafe for the fact that it has collected the levy itself.

So what I see here, under clause 217, is a much greater level of compliance cost that is going to be loaded on to the employer. What I would really like to know from the Minister in the chair is whether this is something that would be nice to have—let us see what happens with the cost, let us see whether it blows out, or let us see whether the legislation is actually meeting its statutory requirement, and, if it is, that is fine and away we go—or whether there is going to be any more money in an appropriation to actually bolster the number of WorkSafe staff to allow WorkSafe to carry out its statutory obligations, or whether, in fact, this is actually going to be implemented the day after or the month after this bill is enacted into legislation.

I would also like to know, because I cannot see it here—and that does not mean it is not here; maybe I am missing something—the level of the levy that is proposed to be charged. Is it going to be a similar sort of levy as the WorkSafe levy? For high-risk industries, for example, are we going to see employers actually paying double what they pay at the moment? I would suggest that for some employers, if you go and double the WorkSafe levy that they pay as part of the ACC requirements at the moment, that could actually be quite onerous. We all understand the reasons for health and safety in the workplace, and that is a given—we do not want to see men and women injured. However, if you are going to increase it by a significant amount, then I think that the people of New Zealand, the employers and the employees, probably need to know the level at which this is going to be increased, if, in fact, it is going to be increased. So there are a whole lot of unknowns around this that would require a level of clarification.

Another clause I would like to talk about is clause 211, “Health and Safety at Work Strategy”. What clause 211(1) says is that “The Minister must publish a strategy, called the Health and Safety at Work Strategy, that sets out the Government’s overall direction in improving the health and safety of workers.” But the thing that surprises me a little bit here—I am not too sure why the change was made—is that in clause 211(3) it did say that “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to publish the first strategy within 12 months …”, but that was amended to “24 months”.

What we are talking about here is obviously a very important piece of legislation, but I am wondering why the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee saw fit, or someone saw fit, to double it from 12 months to 24 months, because even though it does state in the legislation here that this strategy must be undertaken in consultation with WorkSafe—actually, it says in clause 211(6) “(a) with regulatory agencies; and (b) with other persons who have an interest in work health and safety in New Zealand …”—so it is obviously going to be a highly consultative process, which it should be. I would have thought that this process would probably be under way at the moment—you would hope it would be—because you would hope that a Government would have an overarching strategy for this to start with, but I am not too sure as to why it is going to take 24 months. I wonder, if that is the case, whether this legislation sort of operates in a little bit of a vacuum—not too much, because it is quite a prescriptive piece of legislation. But I am not too sure why it was moved from 12 months to 24 months.

The other thing also is that when I see these words in clause 211(3): “The Minister must make reasonable efforts to publish the first strategy …” or the term “reasonable efforts”, I wonder whether that is just a little bit of an out to mean that the Minister does not actually have to do it within 24 months; he or she can push it out to 30 months or 36 months, or to whatever they want. What I would really have liked to see there is: “The Minister must publish the first strategy within 24 months.”, and not with the little bit of wiggle room that exists, because I would have thought that 24 months is enough time to consult with those who have a really important part to say in this and to get it around the country and develop a strategy—most important.

The other thing also is that it says here in clause 211(7)—and, again, I am dealing with semantics, but, you know, this is what the Committee stage is about—that the Minister must present the strategy to the House as soon as is practicable. And those are the terms in the bill: “after the strategy, amendment, or replacement”—because the Minister can amend and replace at any time—“has been published or made under this section.” Again, the words “as soon as practicable” give a little bit of wiggle room for the Minister to decide whether it is going to be a week, a month, or 2 months. Again, what I would have liked to see, because it is quite a prescriptive piece of legislation, is something that said “within 5 working days”, “within 5 sitting days”, or “within a month after receiving it”, just so there is a level of certainty there, so that we know that when the Minister has completed the strategy and when he or she has done all the consultation, there is a definite time frame within which this strategy is then presented to Parliament for us to look at, for us to go to the workers and employers with, and for us to let them know what the Government is actually talking about.

Those are the only two clauses at this stage that I have questions about. I just think, especially around the funding levy and clause 217, that there are a number of unknowns there that I think if we were to have a couple of answers for, it might just clarify the position for employers and for employees. Thank you very much.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call on Part 5, which I think the previous speaker, Stuart Nash, said is fairly innocuously titled “Miscellaneous Provisions”, and, you know, there are quite a lot of other matters in here. The one that strikes me as quite interesting is the one around the regulations. The regulations start, I think, quite a way back in the bill, and cover an enormous amount, actually. The bill starts with the regulations in clause 221. But the one that I was wanting to focus on, for the discussion that I want to add to this part of the proceeding, is around the regulations that are specified under clause 224, “Regulations relating to worker engagement, participation, and representation”.

Iain Lees-Galloway has already talked about the whole issue of work groups. I want to focus my attention on clause 224(iva), which is the regulations around “specifying high-risk sectors or industries for the purposes of sections 65(3)(b) and 86A(3)(b):”. When you go back and have a look at it, what that means is that it is the regulation around the exemption of workplaces with fewer than 20 workers from having health and safety reps. That is what is covered in clause 65(3)(b), and what is covered in clause 86A(3) is the exemption for persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) with fewer than 20 workers from having a health and safety committee.

I think that this is actually what we have been talking about in the last few days, or since last Wednesday, when the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety released his idea of what he considers to be high-risk industries and industries that are low risk. There has been an enormous amount of concern about the way some sectors have been determined at this stage to be high risk and others deemed to be low risk, and the low-risk ones, of course, under the provisions in clause 86A and clause 65, would therefore be exempt from having health and safety reps or health and safety committees. There has been concern, particularly, about agriculture. We know that agriculture is a dangerous industry, and we know this because of the number of deaths and injuries. You just have to say “quad bike” and you immediately evoke all the accidents that have happened on farms with quad bikes over the last 5 years—and there have been heaps. And yet agricultural places where they use quad bikes—dairy farming, cattle farming, sheep farming—are deemed to be low-risk industries.

You have got to think about how these regulations get made. It does say, I guess, further on under clause 226 that there is to be consultation. However, this just talks about how the Minister must not recommend making any regulations under some of the previous sections “without first consulting persons and organisations that the Minister considers appropriate,”. This sounds well and good, but, actually, it goes on to say in subclause (3) of that clause that “A failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity…”. I would really like to hear from the Minister, who says that he is going to consult around the regulations that will be determining what are high-risk industries and what are low-risk industries. But in the meantime he has kind of skewed it a bit by saying: “We’re using these criteria to determine it, and we’ve decided that worm farming is a high-risk industry. And we’re determining that alpaca farming is a low-risk industry and cattle farming is a low-risk industry, but butterfly breeding and cat breeding are all high-risk sectors.” It just does not make sense.

But I get back to that duty to consult, which is outlined in clause 226. When it talks about what the Minister will consult on—even though he does not have to consult, because it does not invalidate the regulations that will be made as a result—one of the things that it says the Minister will consult on is clause 221, which talks about the welfare of workers. It has got quite a lot in it, actually, but it does actually—yes, it is in clause 221, “Regulations relating to health and safety”. In clause 226, “Consultation requirements for making certain regulations”, it also specifically says that some of those things that the Minister will consult on are around regulations on accommodation. I went on a bit about accommodation for workers as part of their remuneration packages in a previous part that we were discussing last week, but I do note that the Minister does not have to consult about what is adequate housing for people, but there is the ability to have that regulated for.

This part seems to me to be the yeah, nah part: “Yeah, we’ll do that, but, nah, we don’t have to.” Yes, we will have health and safety reps in some industries, but not in the ones that we think are low risk, despite the fact that everybody else thinks they are high risk. And we will consult if we feel like it, but not consulting does not make it invalid. So it is a yeah, nah kind of situation. It worries me that there are these kinds of “get out of jail free” clauses consistently through parts of the bill. I think that when we do look at regulations there does have to be excellent consultation, and if we are looking at changing health and safety culture then that consultation has to be widespread. It has to be with more than the employers. It has to be with more than just the industry peak bodies. This is where workplace representatives or health and safety committees could have been really useful, particularly in the high-risk categories—the ones that are actually high-risk industries—because that is where you can get real consultation, get the real solutions about what is happening on the job, and start to make part of the culture change in the workplace.

So we are a bit concerned about this whole thing about how you develop regulations, how you do not, and exactly what we will have in them, because those are the powers that are handed to the Minister and are not necessarily in the body of this legislation that we are discussing now. That concerns me as well, because it seems to me that we should actually rely on a wider range of viewpoints to get to a place where we do create good workplace health and safety culture.

I think that is all I will contribute at the moment. Thanks.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak to Part 5 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. The part that I really want to focus on for my contribution is clause 212, which is about workplace injury prevention. [Interruption] Yes, I know that the Hon Ruth Dyson has got an equally important and different contribution to make around that same point. I am going to stick to the issue that we debated at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee around this part.

We were given some assurances by officials that I want to make sure of, and I guess I want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner, to make sure that it is also her understanding of the assurances that we were given. This was exploring the issue around workplace injury prevention programmes, which have to be provided by both WorkSafe and ACC. Currently, my understanding is that what we have in the Accident Compensation Act, which clause 212 refers to, is a provision that requires the expenditure of the money that is put aside for workplace injury prevention programmes to be used in a way where they demonstrate that those workplace injury prevention programmes would result in a reduction in levy rates or expenditure. In fact, the wording in the Act is that a reduction in levy rates or expenditure is expected.

What I raised at the select committee was the concern that, in fact, some really good workplace injury prevention programmes would, by the nature of being successful, sometimes increase levy rates. I am just going to have to back-pedal a little bit and explain to people about how ACC levy rates are set. They are set in a manner where if an industry or a sector has a large number of injuries or accidents or workplace deaths, then it will have a higher ACC levy, and if it has a lower rate of notifications of injuries or deaths or accidents, then it has a lower levy. So it would seem intuitive that workplace injury prevention programmes would bring the accident rate down, and bring the death rate down, and would, therefore, lower the levies.

However, in some instances, and particularly with regard to occupational disease, that can actually have the opposite effect. What I mean by that is that sometimes people do not know that the symptoms that they are suffering from are a result of an occupational disease that they may have picked up some time earlier, a long time ago at a different workplace, because they simply are unaware that those symptoms are associated with perhaps a chemical that they used to handle in a previous workplace. So a workplace injury prevention programme that actually raises awareness of occupational disease, the symptoms associated with it, and the outcomes of that may actually increase the number of claims that are put forward to deal with the outcome of that occupational disease and, therefore, could actually end up increasing the ACC levy being paid by a particular industry or sector.

As perverse a result as that may seem, I was concerned that clause 212 in Part 5 of this bill may, in fact, stop such workplace injury prevention programmes from being accepted, approved, and paid for by either ACC or WorkSafe because of what that clause says. It does say that “Section 264A of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 requires WorkSafe and ACC to, at all times, have a workplace injury prevention action plan that meets the requirements of that section.” That section, as I said before, requires that a reduction in levy rates or expenditure is expected as a result of those.

Why I raise that is that we were given assurances by officials—and I would like those assurances repeated by the Minister, for the benefit of this Committee—that although that may well be an expectation that is put on programmes that are funded by ACC, that particular provision would not be extended to the workplace injury prevention programmes provided by WorkSafe. I am debating this bill in the Committee stage, rereading clause 212, and feeling nervous all over again because it does stipulate that both ACC and WorkSafe have to have regard to that clause in the ACC legislation. I am now just as nervous as I once was that we are going to have this provision applied to WorkSafe programmes as well.

I did, though, ensure that the select committee—the select committee agreed with the issues that I was raising. We wanted to ensure, through our commentary, that we were clear in our instructions to Parliament about what our understanding was. In the commentary that has been reported back, on the consideration of this bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, there is a section that I just want to read out. I want to make sure the Committee understands what the select committee believed, from the official advice, and I would like the Minister to reiterate that we have got this right.

Under the heading “Injury prevention” in the commentary it states: “Although reduction in ACC levies is not the only driver of injury prevention programmes, we were concerned that such programmes would be constrained to only achieving reductions to levies, when some programmes should raise awareness and therefore increase the number of ACC claims being made. We were assured”—and that means by the officials—“that WorkSafe’s injury prevention programmes can continue to be funded by WorkSafe and that such funding would not be dependent on a need to achieve a reduction to ACC levies as a criteria.”

Getting an assurance on that before we vote on this part of the bill is very important. We want to make sure that the Minister’s understanding is the same as what the select committee was advised, otherwise the Labour Party will continue to have a concern that a whole range of very effective workplace injury prevention programmes would not be able to be funded either for ACC provisions or by WorkSafe provisions, and that would particularly put at risk injury prevention around occupational disease. But it would not just be occupational disease; it would be anything where raising awareness of the issue would, in fact, perhaps lead to more claims being put forward to ACC and an increase in levies or expenditure occurring by ACC.

Further on, with regard to the issue of workplace injury prevention, I do want to note that under this Government the funding for workplace injury prevention programmes fell drastically. It has somewhat been restored, but has still not been restored to the level that it was way back in 2008. I think that, in conjunction with clause 212, in Part 5 of the bill, the Government needs to give us an assurance that the funding levels will not only return to what they were way back in 2008 but, in fact, catch up with the inflationary costs that have occurred since then and catch up with the increase in workforce participation that has occurred since then, and it needs to make sure that we have workplace injury prevention programmes that are funded to a level where they make a difference. This is what the bill is about. It is about actually preventing injuries at work, where we can do that best. The reason why this bill has come about is that we have got such a lousy record when it comes to preventing injuries in the workplace, and, certainly, the Government’s cuts to funding since 2008 have not helped in that regard at all.

The other contribution I would like to make on Part 5 is with regard to the health and safety at work strategies. Again, in clause 211 in Part 5 we know that “The Minister must publish a strategy, called the Health and Safety at Work Strategy, that sets out the Government’s overall direction in improving the health and safety of workers.” I think that when that is published it is going to be very interesting to see what the Minister has to say about the level of risk on farms. Certainly, there is a lot of confusion over what the strategic view within National is on that issue. So I look forward to seeing what Government members have to say about the unforgivably high number of workplace deaths that we have in the farming industry. I hope it certainly is not explained in that strategy as being low risk, because I think every New Zealander understands that that is just simply not the case. The strategy must be developed jointly with WorkSafe, and the Minister must make reasonable efforts to publish the first strategy within 24 months after the commencement of this section.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I will go to clause 228A, which is the issue of exemptions. Not having been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I have not been privy to the discussion around this, but I am trying to think of where exemptions might occur. We have had a reference to the armed forces earlier in the body of the legislation, and there are some criteria, of course—“The regulator may exempt any person”, and, just to go back, it is exemption from compliance with regulations. So the regulations will be imposed, but the clause will allow an exemption from compliance with that. I have been trying to think through situations where that might occur, because it says in clause 228A(2)(b) that “the exemption is not inconsistent…”. So it must not be granted if “the exemption is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act.”—that is, the exemption may be granted, but the purpose of the Act must still be complied with.

Although I have raised the issue earlier in the debate around the bill’s purpose being to provide a balanced framework, rather than an effective framework—which I would always have advocated for—the requirements and the purposes cover a fairly wide range of things, such as fair and effective workplace representation, and encouraging unions and employer organisations to take a constructive role. The question I ask of the Minister is for what purpose would we have an exemption? It is not a flippant question. It is one that I am struggling to understand because the purposes of the bill are sound. Although I may take issue with the words, I think we know what we are trying to achieve here, and to allow exemptions from compliance is somewhat of a dangerous thing. In the armed forces, I think there is some understanding of why there is an exemption. I have been an adventure tourism operator and I have been a farmer. These are both, in my view, high-risk areas, in spite of the view of the Government, but I still cannot think of areas where I would want us to deviate from the objectives and the purposes of this piece of legislation. Keeping that in mind, I would have thought that we were covered and did not need an exemption.

I am looking out—there may be in nature, of course, unforeseen circumstances, but you cannot regulate for them, in my view, or for exemptions, or maybe this is the area that the Minister wants to refer to. If there is a natural event and if it has not been possible to comply with the regulations, maybe then that would stop a prosecution from occurring or would stop an inspector from coming in and initiating that. But I would think, and hope—and it is the loophole that I guess they used in Pike River—that in unforeseen circumstances there is a plan B or a plan C or a plan D, because we should not undertake anything that would put anyone’s life at risk. We are trying to protect employees and employers—and anyone else, of course—in and around the workplace. So, I ask that question of the Minister in the chair, Nicky Wagner, and, hopefully, she can come back and answer it.

There are other provisions in here, and one of the things that I want to look at is notification. It is a very important part in clause 221(1)(d) where notifiable events—which is the right term for it, I think—are referred to in regulations “prescribing matters (including requirements) relating to notifiable events at workplaces, including—(i) regulating the taking of any action to prevent a notifiable event …”. The question I have is about how we ensure that every employer understands what a notifiable event is, and will those events be written down in regulations or will they just be covered as a general principle?

It is at the cutting edge, I guess, of implementation, of prosecution, and of the fear that some employers have. A notifiable event in one workplace—I guess, cutting your finger in an office—might be seen as a major event, but, in defence of the farmers, if you cut your finger while you are fencing it is probably not a notifiable event. I am just assuming that the regulations cover that. I have to say that I would have hoped that the regulations would allow that kind of variation—take a cut finger, say—across a number of occupations, and it would have been better to do that than to say that some occupations were simply low risk and to cover it in that way.

I think that the approach that the Government has used in this area has been absolutely wrong, and there will be people here who are interested in the farming sector and they may think they have gained a huge victory in this. I could go back—and, indeed, I have gone back—to the 1992 legislation and the debates here in the House when the National Government Ministers said that they had made great headway in achieving a balanced piece of health and safety legislation. That Government had done away, of course, with mining legislation or had assumed that a code of practice might come in, so people—probably farmers and others—saw it as a huge victory.

I have not counted up the number of people who have been killed, and I am not naive enough to think that every one of those deaths would have been prevented, but if we had taken the approach, as many other countries have done—not the one of the 1992 Government, and now of the 2015 Government, both of which were National Governments, that says that a balanced approach is necessary. Well, when it comes to people’s lives, we need better than balance. We need effective legislation that ensures that any young or old person who goes on to a farm or into a forest or who is in an office workplace is going to be safe. You do not have to go very far in terms of Google to pick up example after example of death and the failure of our systems on farms to protect workers, and a continuation of the same is not good enough.

In fact, when seatbelts were introduced in this country, there were many people who said: “Look, we can’t force this on people. We can’t ensure that everyone in a car wears a seatbelt. We’ve got to be reasonable about this.” Well, no, the law said we had to, and now we have got to the point in our culture, and our approach to car safety has improved, to the point where young children will scream if they are not in a seatbelt, and that is a great outcome. And there will be a point in the future on farms when the culture and approach to safety is one that does generate a far better outcome.

I am concerned that the compromises to achieve the so-called balance, and to maybe look at notifiable events in a slightly different way between farms and other workplaces—or, indeed, between different types of farming. A worm farm being a high-risk venture and a dairy farm being a low-risk one—the ridiculousness, the stupidity, of that is not lost on just about every single New Zealander. I come back the issue of exemptions because the Government has made an exemption for a whole class or classes of farming, which is stupid, and I am fearing that the exemptions that are wide open, through legislation—in clause 228A here—may allow the Government, because of political lobbying or anything else, to leave open other exemptions that might not protect workers in this country.

We do not want some kind of ridiculous, authoritarian regime. We do want to improve the culture, but it is absolutely essential that we take a fair approach to all employers throughout New Zealand—all employers should take on board their responsibility, as do all employees. But to leave out, as the Government has, some key areas where it is obvious—every day in the paper; I am sure that every single day in rural and provincial New Zealand, we would have a report of at least an injury and, all too often, unfortunately, a report of a death—and to make those exemptions makes a mockery of what this Parliament is trying to do. I hope that this clause here, which is, again, allowing exemptions, is not abused by the same stupidity of a Government or a regulator—

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am really pleased to contribute to Part 5, which I think is misleadingly titled “Miscellaneous provisions”. I do not mean that it is deliberately misleading, but I think it could imply that it has not got a lot in it, when, in fact, there is a huge amount of really important provisions in this part. It covers clauses 205 to 239, and although I do not want to focus most of my contribution on the last clause, I would invite members to read clause 239, “Consequential amendments”. It just says: “Amend the enactments specified in Schedule 3 as set out in that schedule.” I looked at schedule 3, and it just goes on and on and on. I am quite surprised that there has been, to the best of my knowledge—and I have been listening in the Committee to the debate—very little, if any, debate on the raft of legislation that is described in consequential amendments under clause 239 and set out in schedule 3.

Although I have referred to clause 239, and I might get back to it later, the main contribution that I would like to make is in terms of both the drafting and the content in an area that my colleague Sue Moroney quite accurately predicted, and that is in clauses 211 and 212. These are the two areas dealing with health and safety at work, including the publishing of a strategy, and workplace injury prevention.

I want to ask about the drafting first of all. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner, is not responsible for any of this legislation, but as she is the Minister sitting in the chair I would encourage her to get advice from her competent officials and answer some of the questions that have been raised. It is really frustrating when you do not have the responsible Minister but you do have legitimate questions that are unanswered. Sometimes Ministers just use their lack of portfolio responsibilities as an excuse, but I know that they could ask their advisers for some contributions and be of assistance to the Committee as we go through this Committee stage. This is our only opportunity as the Committee of the whole House to get answers about specific parts of the legislation that we are debating. Once we are through the Committee stage, that opportunity is lost to us.

So I would like to ask, in terms of the drafting precedents, about clause 212, “Workplace injury prevention”. That clause describes two provisions—section 264A and section 264B—of an entirely different piece of legislation, the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and how that legislation “requires WorkSafe and ACC to, at all times, have a workplace injury prevention action plan that meets the requirements of that section.” I do not recall other legislation in which provisions are contained that just say “another Act has this in it”. It does not have any legislative requirements pertaining to the Health and Safety Reform Bill; it just refers to what is in another Act, and I want to know about the drafting precedents of that. We have been told that it is not consistent with modern drafting practice to refer to other bits of legislation that may be relevant, and, to me, this seems to be inconsistent with that advice, which I have heard discussed in the Chamber previously. So that is my first question—not about the content, but about the drafting, and what I think is unusual and not in keeping with parliamentary practice in 2015.

The next point that I want to raise is actually more specifically about the policy and the intent in clauses 211 and 212. Let us start with clause 211. It is titled: “Health and Safety at Work Strategy”, and it says in subclause (2): “The strategy must be developed jointly with WorkSafe.” It does not say who it is jointly developed between. One may assume that it refers to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, but nowhere in this clause is the Minister required to develop a strategy. The Minister is just required to “publish a strategy”, and I think that leaves it up to the goodwill of the Minister to actually develop a strategy jointly with WorkSafe, if that is the intention. It may be jointly with ACC, or it may be jointly with any number of people, but it is not at all clear what clause 211(2) means in terms of who the parties to the development of the strategy are.

The Minister should, in my view, lead the development of a strategy. I am surprised that after 7 long years the Government has not worked out that we used to have a workplace health and safety strategy. It was a robust strategy. It set a framework of action for Government departments and agencies. I do not know what has happened to it. The Minister probably did not know it was in existence, because this seems to be the first ever time that attention has been focused on the need for a strategic framework for Government departments and agencies to work to.

I am concerned about subclause (4), which says: “The Minister may amend or replace the strategy at any time.” To me, that gives the Minister powers that I think may not necessarily be abused but that I think are not representative of the need for collaboration and understanding and commitment to the implementation of a strategy. Having a unilateral ability to amend or replace a strategy is not the way to get buy-in from employers and workers in New Zealand for the successful implementation of a strategy. If we have learnt one thing through this Committee process—and, listening to some of the contributions from the other side, sometimes I wonder whether there were lessons learnt—it is the need for people to understand and buy into and then commit to the implementation of ensuring that our workplaces are safe.

I just want to turn my attention now to the provisions of injury prevention that are outlined in clause 211(5)(b), which is ACC’s injury prevention priorities, and, again, I refer to clause 212. I want to tell the Committee of the whole House a little story about what I think were two excellent injury prevention programmes. One is directly related to the provisions in this legislation, and one is not, but I want to tell the Committee the story of it anyway, if I may. The reason I say they were excellent injury prevention programmes is that they were independently peer reviewed in a robust fashion and were found to be excellent.

The first programme was an older persons’ fall prevention strategy. It was led by good organisations throughout our country, sometimes Presbyterian Support and sometimes Age Concern. It was a very simple programme, which, of course, was designed to reduce the number of falls by older people. Otago University’s injury prevention research unit peer reviewed it and said that it was excellent. It was simple, it was accessible, it was free, and it was reducing the number of falls in New Zealand that older people had inflicted upon themselves. I think that sounds like a really good idea. When an older person falls and breaks their hip, they die a lot earlier than if they had not fallen and broken their hip. We know that is a fact. So if we can prevent falls that hurt people, cost the health system, and cause earlier deaths than otherwise would have occurred, we should do it and we should put Government money into it. One of the first actions of the incoming National Government in 2008 was to cut the funding for that programme.

Another programme that had exactly the same outcome—that is, excellent injury prevention outcomes but funding cuts—was the health and safety training. It went to three levels—introduction level, second level, and third level—and was developed jointly between the then Department of Labour occupational health and safety experts and ACC. Workers from all over New Zealand were able to go to those courses and learn about making their workplace safer, not just for themselves but for other people, and then go back to their workplace and pass on that knowledge. That is a great driver of a change in the culture of New Zealand’s workforce, and that is what we need. We need better education and better understanding, and leadership to drive a change of culture that will reduce the number of injuries.

Again, one of the first actions of the incoming National Government in 2008 was to cut the funding for those programmes. So they are no longer available, despite clause 212 describing workplace injury prevention and explaining the requirement for WorkSafe and ACC to have, at all times, a workplace injury prevention action plan.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): I would like to talk specifically to clause 229, “Approval of codes of practice”. I am assuming that a code of practice is a series of points that together basically lay out a blueprint to keep workers safe. If we took, say, an industry such as the meatworks or the freezing works—and I think in particular of the freezing works up north. Within that freezing works there are a number of different roles from administrative roles to people out in the stockyards, to people who actually give a beast the lethal stun, and through to the butchers, the people who skin it, the boners, and everything. So there will be different roles within a single industry, and I am wondering whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nicky Wagner, could answer the question: do each of those particular roles have different codes of practice to ensure that those workers are kept safe?

I see that it says in clause 229(1) that “The Minister may—(a) approve a code of practice developed by the regulator for the purposes of this Act; and (b) amend or revoke an approved code of practice.”, but the Minister may approve or revoke or amend only if he or she is satisfied that it has been amended or revoked or developed “by a process that involved consultation between—(a) unions; and (b) employer organisations;”. I think of the particular freezing works up north where the employer organisation absolutely hates unions, and it is absolutely opposed to anything the unions do. It does not want to listen. If there is any form of negotiation, it just likes to walk away from those negotiations and basically leave the unions and the employees dangling. So that is just one point there that the Minister may approve, if there has been consultation.

However, if we move to clauses 229(5) and 229(6), basically the Minister is then able to make amendments without any consultation. It is basically saying that if a code of practice “corresponds, or substantially corresponds, to a code of practice…”, then “The following may be approved by the Minister without carrying out the consultation required …”. I would like to know what “substantially corresponds with” means. Are we talking about 99 percent? Is that a substantial corresponding? Or 95 percent, or 80 percent? Is it just a majority? So what does a code of practice that substantially corresponds to another code of practice actually mean?

The Minister is able to make any minor or technical amendments to an approved code of practice on his or her own undertaking, and, yet that code of practice, as I have said earlier, needs to be developed in consultation with unions and employers. So to me it is a bit disjointed that in one case there needs to be consultation around the development, the approval, the amending, or the revoking of a code of practice, but on the other hand, further on in that same clause, the Minister is able to make, basically, unilateral decisions around that code of practice.

Clause 229(6) says: “If the Minister approves any amendment in accordance with subsection (5)(b), the regulator must make reasonable efforts to notify any affected persons or their representatives of the amendment.” But that is after the fact, while I believe that there should have been discussion, dialogue, or consultation before the fact, before the Minister makes those changes. As I have said, I believe that those two subclauses in clause 229 are a bit disjointed, a bit out of sync there. It would be good if the Minister could just clarify exactly why it is that in one instance the Minister must listen to consultation between the—

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I am speaking to the proposed amendments to the Health and Safety Reform Bill and, in particular, to elements on Supplementary Order Paper 108. I just want to run us through a line in there that I hope, when this legislation is implemented, the Government actually takes note of and acts on. I ask the Minister in the chair whether the Government will actually get in and look at the issues of pesticides and worker safety around pesticides.

I will start with clause 215(2) in Part 5, which says: “The medical officer of health must, as soon as practicable after receiving the notification,—… (b) provide the regulator with the following information: (i) the name of the person who suffers or suffered from the notifiable disease or injury caused by the hazardous substance;”—just think pesticides. I am referring to this because, in 2009, Massey University showed that there was a big increase in leukaemia among horticulture workers. Women, in particular, had, I think, a 3.4 times incidence compared with the general public due to their work exposure. That was in 2009, just after this Government got in, but I see nothing happening about that.

Just sort of rolling on through, in clause 217 there is the issue around the funding levy. It did concern me, when I heard the debate on the different risk level between worm farming and other agriculture, about what the motivation was around some agriculture, and I think in this instance of dairying and beef not being included in the risk level that I would have thought was appropriate. There is a high, high use of pesticides, including herbicides such as glyphosate, which the World Health Organization has just said is a probable carcinogen. When are we going to get those lines of inquiry to see what is happening and to see why we are getting such a high incidence of cancers in our communities, and when will we then look at the workers?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member must—

STEFFAN BROWNING: Sorry—I said “you”, did I?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, the member—just sit, please. I am on my feet. The member will sit, please. We are not talking about what other inquiries there may be in terms of hazardous substances and glyphosate, or whatever. You can mention it, but just stick to the content of the bill.

STEFFAN BROWNING: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, so I am looking at the funding levies and hoping that we will see some changes to ensure that the appropriate level of levy is there, relative to the risk that is in that workplace, and the workplace, as I say, needs to be considering those pesticides and herbicides that we are finding out more and more about.

In clause 218C, it says: “(1) A person must not use plant or substance at a workplace if—… (b) the plant or substance or its design is not authorised in accordance with regulations.” We need to be ensuring, and the Minister will have a major role in ensuring, that the regulations are appropriate to that risk. That includes, obviously, safety gear and the rest.

Under the regulations, in clause 221(1)(e)(i), we have “regulating the storage, tracking, and handling of plant, substances, or structures:”—so it is the handling of those substances and the tracking of them. The reason I bring that up is that I am thinking that through this bill it might be that the Government does track the level of use and the volumes of use of some of these substances that will be a risk to the workers and the communities near the operation.

Popping over into clause 221(1)(e)(iii), it says “regulating the examination, testing, analysis,” and so on. Testing in this country seems to be lacking as well, and I am hoping, again, that we will actually see some improvements through this bill when it is passed.

Under clause 222, “Regulations relating to hazardous substances”, in particular—and I will go straight down to paragraph (a)(v), which says “for substances with toxic properties,—”. Then it says, in paragraph (g), “prescribing systems for tracking hazardous substances, including requirements that—… (ii) the quantity of the substances be recorded:”. We have no record of the amount of pesticide being used in our workplaces, in our fields, in our farms, and in our forests, and yet we have a large amount of disease and illness that, more and more, is being connected with that.

So my point is that when this bill, no doubt, goes through—albeit our opposition to so many aspects of it—there is a great opportunity for the Minister to be ensuring that it is used in its fullness to protect our workers and communities from the pesticides in there. As I say, the science is there. We know the risk is there, and, unfortunately, a lot of what we have been calling PCBUs, or persons conducting a business or undertaking, are allowing staff to be putting out chemicals that they would not put out themselves—it suits them not to do it themselves. And, of course, we need to be educating those staff and workers, and making sure that the regulations are here to support that, to make sure that the right gear is being used.

But, ultimately, we need to be doing the tracking that Part 5 allows for, which is the measuring of volumes that are being used. We need to be really respecting our workers, the people in agriculture and horticulture and forestry, and ensuring that they are not actually being exposed to these chemicals, which we know are affecting them. I want to see through this legislation that those chemicals are being measured, that illness is being reported by the medical officers, as this legislation can allow for, and that we are starting to analyse what is going on in those workplaces. Thank you.

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 5 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 26

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Clayton Mitchell to clause 227(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Noes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Clayton Mitchell to add new clause 227(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Noes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Part 6 Amendments to other Acts

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Part 6 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill is the part that contains amendments to other Acts. As I am sure people would appreciate, health and safety legislation does interact significantly with other pieces of legislation. It does not act in isolation. Therefore, in developing a new health and safety regime, there have been included in the legislation amendments to some other pieces of legislation—in particular, the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

I will begin this first contribution by discussing some of the changes to the Accident Compensation Act. Clause 244 inserts new sections 174A to 174F into the Accident Compensation Act. This deals with the development and establishment of workplace incentive programmes. New section 174A(1) talks about the corporation developing “… 1 or more workplace incentive programmes to provide incentives for employers and self-employed persons to reduce the incidence, severity, and impact of work-related personal injuries.”, and states that “(2) A Work Account levy determined … may be adjusted up or down for a particular employer or a particular self-employed person in accordance with the terms and conditions of a workplace incentive programme.”

In other words, the levy that you may pay to the work account as an employer, or as a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU), which is the term that we are using in this legislation, may be determined by the safety record that you have. This is to be done increasingly, under this legislation, in conjunction with WorkSafe. The changes contained in this legislation prescribe the process to develop a workplace incentive programme, which has to have regard to, as new section 174B(1)(a)(i) states: “the extent to which the programme is likely to lead to reductions in the incidence, severity, and impact of work-related personal injuries and to improvements in rehabilitation and durable return to work; and (ii) the extent to which the programme may affect the Work Account levies payable by levy payers who are not participating in the programme;”. This is the bit where there has been a little bit of concern.

My colleague Sue Moroney has raised this, and I am sure she will go into this in some depth. This was the area that she looked at most closely during the deliberations of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—the question of whether reducing levies is the best indicator that an injury and prevention programme is working appropriately. The one rather perverse example that did come up during the select committee process was that it is actually more costly for ACC to deal with the ongoing compensation and rehabilitation of a person who is injured than it is, obviously, for someone who is killed in a workplace accident.

So you could have the outcome where the worst result—someone being killed in an incident rather than injured—actually results in lower costs for ACC. So you have got to be very careful when you focus solely on cost as a measure of whether or not a programme to prevent injuries and deaths at work is actually working. We sought some assurances at the select committee. Initially, we thought we were getting those assurances, but the more advice we took and the more we examined this, we realised that, actually, it is possible that these perverse outcomes could happen, because the focus is very much on getting the cost of those levies down.

The new sections on the changes to the Accident Compensation Act also go on under clause 249, which inserts new sections 264A and 264B. These provisions deal with a Workplace Injury Prevention Action Plan. This is where ACC—the Accident Compensation Corporation—and WorkSafe must at all times have a Workplace Injury Prevention Action Plan, something that I hope ACC has certainly been working on for a long time and would expect to have been in place in the past.

New section 264A(2) states that “The Corporation and WorkSafe—(a) may amend the workplace injury prevention action plan at any time; and (b) must review the workplace injury prevention action plan at least once every 3 years.” It has to “(3)(a) outline all workplace injury prevention programmes that will be undertaken by WorkSafe and the Corporation (jointly or separately) in the period to which the plan relates;”. The corporation and WorkSafe have to lay out their priorities for injury prevention, but, again, one of the priorities that is restated is this priority of getting the levies down. Again, we warn that it is important that we take care not to confuse reducing levies with effective measures to prevent injury and death at work.

Subpart 2 of Part 6 makes amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. There are a range of amendments to that Act dealing with matters that have to do with potential injury caused by various chemicals and substances, as well as the impact of ongoing occupational disease caused by various substances that people may find that they come into contact with in their working life. It is actually difficult but important that our health and safety legislation addresses the issue of occupational disease. It may not be immediately obvious that an action—the use of a particular chemical, or the use of personal protective equipment or the lack of use of it—is causing danger to the worker, because you may not immediately receive an injury like a burn or inhale a substance that has an immediate effect. It may be that ongoing exposure to that particular substance over time has a long-term effect.

Obviously, this is something that we are far more mindful of today than we have been in the past, but often we can discover this a long way down the track. You do not realise at the time that it is causing damage, but further down the track it turns out that it has been causing damage. So it is important that we are mindful of these matters, and the bill goes some way to attempting to address the ways in which that can be done. For instance, clause 271 replaces section 74 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act with—and this is with regard to the establishment of hazard classification system—provision whereby the Environmental Protection Authority has the ability to prescribe “… for each intrinsic hazardous substance property, a number of degrees or types of hazard, which may be done either by reference to an international system or by incorporation of material under section 141A:”—a system of classifying different substances and therefore indicating the types of precautions that need to be taken in the use of those substances. You would like a little bit more entertainment, Mr Chairperson? Do not worry; we will get to the preliminary clauses soon. This is—

Sue Moroney: Well, not too soon.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, not too soon. There are some very technical aspects to this legislation. I can see by the clock in front of you, Mr Chairperson, that my time for this particular call is coming to an end. I am sure I will get an opportunity to speak again. We will come back to some of the other matters in this part shortly.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to speak specifically about new section 264A, “Workplace injury prevention action plan” in clause 249, in reference to a recommendation that is made at the beginning of the report in relation to domestic violence. Although, sadly, we have been expressing disappointment all the way through this debate, on this point I would like to express some hope and gratitude for the clarification and the fact that it is set down in writing in this legislation that domestic violence is a workplace hazard in this country. I expect that the Workplace Injury Prevention Action Plan, as referenced in new section 264A, will take that into account and that, hopefully, we will see action by ACC and support through ACC-funded activities for a roll-out across the country of support for businesses to develop appropriate policies to enable workplaces to put systems in place to ensure that domestic violence is not acting as a hazard in the workplace.

We know that a safety survey of New Zealand women that was done in 1996 found that 17 percent of studied participants had experienced stalking by their ex-partner outside their workplace. We know that women are most likely to be killed 6 months after leaving a relationship. The Family Violence Death Review Committee does not have the power to go into a workplace to investigate after a death. But it has found out informally, from people it has spoken with, that the only people who knew were the women’s workmates—and we have had a survey showing that 17 percent of women were stalked by ex-partners outside their workplace. So that is a very large problem, and it is impacting on productivity in this country, as well as safety.

There was research done by Suzanne Snively, commissioned by the New Zealand Public Service Association, that found that, on a very conservative estimate, $368 million was being lost through productivity losses in our workplaces every year as a result of domestic violence—and that is the most conservative estimation of that. That would add up to around $3.7 billion being lost from our economy through loss of productivity and staff turnover because of domestic violence over a 10-year period.

If policies were put in place, we would have the potential to save lives, increase productivity, and improve the bottom line for our businesses. To me, that is ultimately what we want our health and safety legislation to be about. It is about protecting everyone in the workplace. It is also about raising that bottom level of expectation for employers so that we support our employers to be doing the best by everyone in the workplace, so that employees can be as happy and productive as possible.

We know that we are losing a lot from our economy through domestic violence, and we are losing lives as well, and we have an opportunity for intervention that would also save us money in terms of the increased welfare benefits. Overseas evidence has shown that 70 percent of women on sole parent benefits are likely to be leaving violent relationships. This is an absolute possibility for a win-win-win intervention, where we can help the Government’s lines, we can save lives, and we can improve business productivity. So I am advocating very strongly for the ACC Workplace Injury Prevention Action Plan to be negotiated with WorkSafe to include a plan for training for businesses around the country.

I have had the discussion with Business New Zealand about this and it has said that businesses are really keen to intervene and support staff around domestic violence. It recognises domestic violence as a workplace hazard. Unfortunately, it is not supporting my bill in relation to putting in those workplace protections. It saw that as being a bit nanny State, but it was not averse to the Government providing, through ACC, support for businesses to help them to intervene and do what is right. Many employers overestimate the risk. They underestimate the prevalence of violence and the impact on their staff, but if somebody is experiencing domestic violence, they overestimate what the risk of that may be in the workplace. Some people—mostly women, but possibly men as well—are losing their jobs because of that lack of knowledge and the lack of clear policies and supports for that.

I know that the Ministry of Social Development has developed a range of resources, including mock-ups of policies and posters to go in workplaces, so a lot of work has been done. But it is not happening; it is not being rolled out through the country. Most employers would not have a clue that, actually, under existing legislation, domestic violence is a hazard. I do not know whether anyone in this Committee has experienced a workplace where, when you did your hazard identification, domestic violence was mentioned within that. I have never experienced it, even though I have been in a workplace where colleagues have been experiencing domestic violence, and I have certainly seen how much of my time—as well as the time of other colleagues and the time of the colleague who was experiencing the violence—was taken up in dealing with it.

We did put accommodations in place, but that was based on only our knowledge, and that was luck. In many other places people have not had the experiences that we had to be able to intervene and provide those supports. So it is absolutely vital and of huge benefit for us to be able to get those plans in place and to roll out that training, because businesses have pretty much said that they are not going to do it themselves and that information is not getting out there. So that clearly indicates to me the need for a Government plan. It is here in the legislation, but if nobody knows about it, then what good is it? Very little, I would suggest. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Part 6 now of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. This is the part of the legislation that deals with the very many amendments that need to be made to other Acts. I guess we can probably say at the outset, then, of Part 6 that this does show the widespread effect of the legislation that the Government is enacting, because there are so many amendments to so many other Acts. The parts that I really want to focus on are the amendments that have been made to the Accident Compensation Act 2001. As Labour’s ACC spokesperson, it was obviously an area that I was paying particular attention to when the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was dealing with these issues.

It is interesting to think about health and safety in the workplace, our very precious ACC system that we have—which is unique in the world, actually—and how ACC and workplace health and safety interact and intersect with each other. Because Part 6 makes so many amendments to the Accident Compensation Act, it is clear to see how closely related they are, and I guess it causes us to question whether, in fact, there ought to be an even closer assimilation between the work of ACC and the work of WorkSafe. If you think about it, when levies are collected by ACC from employers and employees and through our motor vehicle levies for the purpose of ACC dealing with the outcomes of accidents and injuries, ACC is also charged with using some proportion of that levy to deal with workplace prevention strategies because, of course, many of the accidents and injuries that it is funding treatment and compensation for happen in the workplace—not all of them, but many of them do. So it is right and it is proper that ACC should be funding workplace prevention strategies that not only include things like road safety but also include the subject of this bill: health and safety in the workplace.

However, there are some concerning parts of it. As we have just debated in Part 5, there is a little bit of smoke and mirrors going on with this Government. It is reducing ACC levies on one hand, but now introducing a funding levy to fund the operations of WorkSafe. We have just agreed to that and passed that in Part 5. There is a bit of a sleight of hand going on there. I wondered whether, in fact, the very many amendments that are made in Part 6 indicate that the Government considered—and I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s views on this—actually keeping ACC levies where they were, albeit that they have been getting overcharged for a number of years now under this Government, and actually ensuring that ACC used its levies to fund the activities of WorkSafe as a workplace injury prevention measure. That is one way the Government could have gone about doing that, I believe, without spending pages and pages here in Part 6 describing how ACC and WorkSafe are kind of going to work together but are kind of going to work separately.

I think that is always going to be our dilemma about ACC and its function and WorkSafe and its function. How do we make sure of the function of both of those entities, which actually are charged with pretty similar functions? Are they are going to duplicate and replicate and fall over the top of each other, or are they going to make sure that everything is covered and there are no gaps between their functions? That is why there are so many amendments to the Accident Compensation Act.

I want to focus on one amendment in particular for the purposes of this call. I am hoping that I will get the opportunity to peruse other parts in another call on Part 6 later on, but for the purposes of what I am discussing now I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 244 in Part 6. This actually amends section 174 of the Accident Compensation Act, and it attempts to make sure that when WorkSafe and the Accident Compensation Corporation are establishing workplace incentive programmes they are working for the same aims. So it amends the Accident Compensation Act to say that when the corporation is establishing workplace incentive programmes, among other things it has to have regard to the following matters set out in new section 174B(1)(a)(i), inserted by clause 244, which I am going to draw the Committee’s attention to. [Interruption] Well, yes, I know it is confusing. Just to be clear, I am now referring to the section in the Accident Compensation Act that needs amending.

New section 174B(1)(a)(i) says that the corporation has to have regard to the following matters: “the extent to which the programme is likely to lead to reductions in the incidence, severity, and impact of work-related personal injuries and to improvements in rehabilitation and durable return to work;”. So why would I be concerned about that? It sounds like a really laudable aim, and it is. But sometimes we get perverse incentives from that type of focus on just reducing the incidence and severity of the work-related personal injuries. What we want to do is make sure that workplace incentive programmes do not incentivise employers, or persons conducting a business or undertaking, as I think they are now called in this legislation, to not report accidents and injuries.

I have certainly come across, in my time, workplaces where people are encouraged, if they hurt themselves at work, to maybe not report it as being a workplace accident or injury because it would then affect the ACC levy that the employer will pay in the future. They are encouraged to report it as something that happened off duty, maybe on the sports field or what have you. Not only is that fraudulent—and I am going to put it right out there that that is a fraudulent practice, so that no one thinks this is something that I am talking about in Parliament and that therefore makes it acceptable—but it also means that we have lost an opportunity to find out about what went wrong in the workplace, because a report is not put forward that actually tells us about what happened with that accident or that injury. Therefore, the opportunity to learn from that has been lost. This part of the bill, this change to the Accident Compensation Act that puts this focus on the workplace incentive programme being designed to reduce the number of injuries and accidents and therefore reduce the levy that is payable, does provide an incentive to do that.

As a former health and safety practitioner, I would say that those sorts of practices actually mean that we have got a more dangerous workplace, because they can lead to a perverse incentive for people to not report their injuries. Therefore, the opportunity to learn is lost, and we know that the most serious work injuries that happen, happen when a number of things go wrong. It is not just one thing that goes wrong; it is the perfect storm from a number of things that line up together and cause a big bad ugly thing. The opportunity to learn from an injury that happened to someone else and fix that problem stops that from lining up with a range of other things to cause the really big ugly serious issue. So I think that new section 174B and the way that we are changing the Accident Compensation Act may, in fact, be causing us an even greater problem in this regard.

I want to go on briefly to look at clause 249 of Part 6 of this bill, which inserts new section 264B into the Accident Compensation Act. Again, I just relay my concerns and ask, because we have got the responsible Minister now in the chair, for his confirmation that WorkSafe will not be subjected to the same thing that we are doing here with ACC, because new section 246B(2)(a)(i) states that before an injury prevention measure is agreed to, ACC and WorkSafe have to say how the measures “are likely to result in a cost-effective reduction in actual or projected levy rates in the Work Account;”. That, Minister, could actually have the effect of a very good injury prevention measure.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): In going through the Health and Safety Reform Bill here, we have got to the point where there is a clear philosophical difference between the National Government and what would be a Labour Government. It comes to a head when we are talking about incentives. At the top of the scale National has always believed that if you are earning a million dollars, then you are incentivised to behave better by being offered a bonus of half a million dollars. “That’s only fair.”, it says. But if you are a worker, then you are incentivised by hearing: “Well, you won’t lose your job, or you won’t be injured, and be satisfied with your incentive.”, and that is effectively what we are doing here.

I am going through the amendments to the Accident Compensation Act under clause 244 in Part 6. New section 174A in clause 244 says: “The Corporation may develop and establish … workplace incentive programmes …”, which I guess will ultimately mean a possible reduction in the levies for employers and self-employed persons for the work account. So I ask: where is the incentive for the earners account?

If we are to have workplace health and safety across the board, if we are to change the culture, and if we are to incentivise every New Zealander, regardless of where they work or participate in the economy, then everyone should be incentivised in the same way. So when the Minister, as in new section 174C, approves a certain workplace incentive programme, does the Minister consider the fairness of the incentives and where they will fall? What is in it for the worker, and the earners account, to behave better by way of a fiscal initiative, when we have got clear provisions and quite detailed incentives here and specifications around what can happen for the employers and self-employed persons?

I am not saying that we should not have incentives, and I am not denying the reality that fiscal incentives—a lower cost, for example—do indeed drive better behaviour. That is the economic theory, anyway. Always the economic theory run by this Tory Government is that if you offer money, things will be better; take money away, and things will be worse. But for the poor old worker the incentive is: “Well, if you don’t work harder, we’ll take all your money away.”

If we are passing this legislation, it is really important, as I have said in almost every speech, that every New Zealander, regardless of their place in the system—whether they be a PCBU or a “b-o-s-s”, or whether they be a worker, who is someone who works for the PCBU or the “b-o-s-s”, they both need the same incentives if we are to change the culture. So where is the incentive for the earners account? Where is the incentive for the workers, so that they get more money if there is a better safety regime in their business or in their industry? Nowhere.

I call on the Minister to offer an answer to that question, because the specifications are not there. It is a reasonable explanation to say: “Well, the worker will be safe. They won’t be killed. Isn’t that incentive enough?”. Well, I tend to try to take a fairer, more equitable, more egalitarian approach to it and I say that I would like to have both the person conducting a business or undertaking—the PCBU, or the “b-o-s-s”—and the worker incentivised by the same methods, so that when the Minister approves the incentive programmes, the benefits accrue to everyone in that business or that sector or that industry. So, where are they? I leave that question with the Minister.

I guess that if we go back to another point, in new section 174B, “Process to develop workplace incentive programme”, there are a number of specifications here. It says “the extent to which the programme is likely to lead to reductions in the incidence, severity, and impact of work-related personal injuries”, which is very sensible, and “the extent to which the programme may affect the Work Account levies”, and that is the fiscal incentive. Then it says “the expected administration costs of the programme;”—fair enough. Here is the other one. It is new section 174B(a)(iv), which says “the impact of the programme on the administration of the accident compensation scheme as a whole and on claims management processes;”.

The question I have here is about ACC, and I know that the most recent statements by the Government have been that it will not sell or dismantle ACC, but I do not trust it. I think it has sold anything it could get its hands on, and even the things it could not. So my question—long term—is what could be the possible implications of this if the Government were to sell ACC? Because when you go down to new section 174C—no, no, Mr Chair. Please let me explain—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are not debating asset sales or potential.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Minister’s approval of certain workplace incentive programmes depends upon a number of things. In new section 174C(2), it says “… the Minister may consider any relevant factors, including—(a) the public interest;”. I think we understand what that is: a safer New Zealand. New section 174C(2)(b) adds “how the proposed workplace incentive programme aligns with the Government’s broader objectives;”. Well, I do not agree with the Government’s broader objectives. I do not know what you think, Mr Chairman. You are probably not allowed—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t bring me into it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to talk too much along those lines. I think people on this side of the Chamber—and I am keeping very strictly to the bill—do not agree with the Government’s broader objectives. So when the Minister has to consider that, when he or she approves an incentive programme, I cannot trust that it is being done for the right reasons.

Can I go on to new section 174C(2)(c). It says that one of the factors that the Minister must consider is “the impact of the proposed workplace incentive programme on levy payers generally or on particular groups of levy payers;”, which brings me right back around to the argument about the workers and the employers. If you were, as I would say to you, to have more consideration for the employer than the employee—and I know this Government has been very quick to beat up on the unions, as though they are running a campaign against the Government. Well, they are not. They are just simply running a campaign to defend the rights of their workers. The fact that the Government is at war with the unions is beside the point. The unions are just trying to defend the rights of workers and, indeed, in this case, their safety. So when the Minister considers relevant factors, if he or she was to consider the rights of the employers over the employees, you know, I do not think that would be right. I do not think we have got the balance right.

So if we come back to the points I am raising here, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that the incentive programmes will deliver benefits to all in the same fiscal way—that is, to the employer and the employee; to the PCBU or the “b-o-s-s”, and to their worker—and then, in considering the programmes, will the Minister give us an assurance that the programmes will deliver equal benefits to both the PCBUs and to the employees?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: This is not your best work, Damien.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, the Minister may laugh, but I have to say that I have been in this House long enough to dig a little deeper and to actually understand what National Governments do. If you would like me to read out some of the quotations from the 1992 passage—I was not quite here in 1992—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Keep it relevant.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —but the point is that we have an obligation to look ahead and take a longer-term projection of what every word in this legislation might mean for people, because the cold, hard reality is that we have got health and safety wrong. We kill too many people in this country. We injure too many.

Although the Government committed post - Pike River to improvements, we say that they have been watered down, and this provision here talks of the incentives being driven by the fiscal incentives of the employers—we know that. We know that this is what it is aiming for, but, actually, the underlying objective of the legislation should be effective—not balanced, but effective—health and safety programmes. That is all I ask of the Minister, and I am sure that he will be happy to get up and take a call and answer those things and try to give us a reassurance that the benefits to the PCBUs and the benefits—

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I too have been looking through Part 6 of this bill in relation to the amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 2001. First of all, I want to echo the concerns of the three colleagues who have spoken before me on the concerns particularly around the reduction in levies and the impact of ACC levies on the one hand and the ability to charge fees for participation in workplace incentive programmes on the other, and whether or not this is a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” approach. So I want to address that. Also, just to follow on from what my colleague Damien O’Connor has said, I want to address section 174C in clause 244, particularly subsection (2) around the powers of the Minister to determine what should and should not be a workplace incentive programme and to try to unpick that a little bit or to ask questions and hope that the Minister can actually provide some explanations or even examples of how those powers actually might work.

Turning to the commentary in this bill around workplace incentive programmes, there was the recommendation around amending clause 244, which inserts that very big section 174A into the Accident Compensation Act. The new section allows the ACC to charge fees for participation in workplace incentive programmes. But it said that incentive programmes would be optional for businesses. In this, of course, it uses the word “flexibility”, which always raises a bit of a red flag: “Increasing the flexibility of funding would allow more flexible programme design.” Then, going to the Minister’s powers on that, presumably the Minister would be able to determine what was and was not an appropriate programme according to the broader objectives of the Government, whatever that means.

Around the injury prevention side of things, there is another concerning sentence there, which I would not mind the Minister, if he does get up and talk to any of the questions raised on Part 6, addressing the commentary where it says that “We were assured that WorkSafe’s injury prevention programmes can continue to be funded by WorkSafe and that such funding would not be dependent on a need to achieve a reduction to ACC levies as a criteria.” Well, I think that that is sort of a really key part of Part 6 of this bill—what lies behind that assurance and what are the Minister’s views on that? I think that, just going to the “robbing Peter to pay Paul” side of things, if WorkSafe does not have that guarantee of funding, are there any fish-hooks attached to that so that funding then becomes dependent on a need to achieve a reduction in ACC levies? So it is sort of taking away with one hand in order to give with another. I think that is a really critical part of Part 6 of the bill and I hope that the Minister will actually address it.

Going to the Minister’s powers, in section 174C(2), inserted by clause 244, which says: “the Minister may consider any relevant factors,”. Just looking at this, and not having anything much to do with this bill—I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, etc.—they look like very wide powers to be given to the Minister. I am a bit concerned about particularly paragraph (b), which is: “how the proposed workplace incentive programme aligns with the Government’s broader objectives;”. What does that mean? I think it is a valid question to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: what does that actually mean? And how does that fit, for instance, with agriculture, to give an example, as to where the workplace incentive programmes may be developed around the reduction of accidents in agriculture, particularly in the sheep, beef, and dairying parts of the industry?

Just to put that into a little bit of context of relevance to this particular Minister, I attended a Rural Business Network meeting last night in my electorate at which there was, obviously, quite a lot of the farming community there. The topic was around compliance and compliance issues. Of course, there were lots of issues raised around water and waterways, etc., but, of course, the top-of-mind issue for everyone in that room last night was health and safety and the implications for their particular industry, their sector, and the confusion that was being expressed around how they were going to be supported to reduce injuries, accidents, and deaths in their industry.

Just going to this clause around establishing workplace incentive programmes, it appears that the Government’s broad objectives—because it does not see this part of farming as high risk; therefore, will there be incentives in this industry, under this legislation, to actually reduce risk? There were 20 deaths in the last 3 years in Otago and Southland; 13 of them were from agriculture. That is pretty significant. Many of them were from quad bike accidents, but also from other agricultural issues. So for those, mainly, men—not all were men—in that room last night, what is the Government’s response to this sector around the workplace incentive programmes, around how they are going to be funded, the guarantees, and around just whether or not they do fit in with the Government’s broader objectives? Is this a priority; if not, why not, and how will this actually play out? I think that those are pretty important questions for the Minister to answer tonight.

I certainly think that the issue raised around the funding—whether or not WorkSafe injury prevention programmes can continue to be funded by WorkSafe, and that that funding will not be dependent on a need to achieve a reduction in ACC levies as a criterion—is really critical. I hope that the Minister will get to his feet tonight and actually answer those questions.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to speak to Part 6 of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. Like a number of my colleagues, I am going to ask a few questions around clause 244, and that is the insertion of sections 174A to 174F. A number of my colleagues have spoken to sections 174A, 174B, 174C, and 174E. But I would like to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety a couple of questions around sections 174D and 174F, and that is that I think, in principle, the setting up of an incentive programme could be a good thing. A number of my colleagues have asked questions about who it will financially benefit the most. They are set up to try to make workplaces safer places, and I do note that under section 174D(3) there is the ability for an audit of the incentive schemes and whether or not they have been successful.

I do also note that in section 174F there is an onus on ACC within its annual report to report on the effectiveness of any incentive schemes. I pose a hypothetical question to the Minister, and that is: if an incentive programme has been set up, and an employer or a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) is essentially getting a discount on its levy because it has an incentive programme, if after 2 or 3 years of auditing and of any results published in annual reports the safety or the record on workplaces is not any better or is, in fact, worse, what kind of redress would there be to effectively say, well, OK, you have not performed as well as you should have under this incentive programme, and therefore can we have the money back?

If there is a financial incentive there for a company and in the initial stages it does put something in place but it is not effective, the taxpayers are essentially giving that company a discount on its ACC levies payable. Its duty should be to pay the appropriate ACC levy. But nothing has changed; in fact, things get worse. What possibility do we have of getting back that money that the company should have and could have paid, if it was not part of an incentive programme? Just looking at, as a first cast, sections 174D(3) and 174F, they certainly set out the ability to audit and for an annual report, but I do not see anywhere here—maybe the Minister could clarify it for me—any redress on behalf of ACC via the taxpayer to get that money back.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution, an incentive programme should be and could be a good thing, and it obviously is going to be of financial benefit if the company does put something in place and it does improve its workplace record. But what if it does not? The onus of this bill is to make workplaces safer, so that is what that does. If we do not achieve that and this company has got a discount off its ACC levies, well, can we go back to that company or that PCBU and say “Well, give the money back.”? It could be a substantial amount of money that has been discounted over the period of time, which was meant to be, under the incentive programme, to make the workplace better. If they do not do that, then I guess the question has to be asked: what kind of redress is there for the taxpayer, for the State, to say “You haven’t held your part of the deal. This workplace isn’t any safer under the incentive programme that you signed up to. We gave you a discount.”? But under new sections 174A to 174F in clause 244, I do not see anything that shows any type of redress for the taxpayer, for the Accident Compensation Corporation, to get that money back.

So we are all for encouraging in this bill, but I think we should have a framework within this bill that shows that if you sign up to this thing, and you cannot pull your weight and your workplace is not any safer—in fact, in some cases, your workplace may be even more dangerous through more incidents—then I think the question needs to be asked, because there does not seem to be anything within this legislation that suggests that there is any redress under these incentive programmes. So although there is a carrot, I do not see any stick in this piece of legislation. If you are going to give someone a carrot, then there needs to be a stick. I would put that to the Minister—whether or not there is a stick within Part 6 of this piece of legislation.

I would like to put it in the context of someone local—Mark Samoa, whom I have mentioned many times and used as a frame for a lot of my speeches in this debate. Mr Samoa was a worker at the ports here in Wellington. He was killed on the waterfront—he was crushed between some bales of pulp. When the High Court brought down its decision, it ruled that there were no processes in place, no safeguards in place, that were there to keep Mr Samoa safe in his workplace. I do not want to go into too much more detail of his particular case, but if his workplace was part of an incentive programme—and I add that it changed things post his death and post the High Court ruling on his death—and if it had not made changes, and maybe it will, and if it did not make it effectively any safer for the colleagues of Mr Samoa since he has passed away, and if it was looking for an incentive, i.e., a discount on its ACC levies, then why should we let it get away with it if it is not meeting its obligations?

I guess that goes to what this whole piece of legislation is about: obligations of health and safety under this new piece of legislation. I do not know, but I am assuming that Mr Samoa’s workplace did have more than 20 people, but if it did not—and here is the stinger for this side of the Committee. A lot of these things we are debating in Part 6—some of which are worthy of us supporting. But because of something in Part 3, I think it is, of the bill, we cannot support this legislation.

So we do question the Government’s motives around this—a lot of good in this piece of legislation we cannot support—and why it changed its mind at the last minute. We know it did. We know that in terms of the agricultural industry, which does have a long track record of being very unsafe, it will not be captured under there, but there are a multitude of other industries that will. I think that it is, from my perspective anyway, far too serious an issue to make light of here, because there are people like Mark Samoa’s family who wanted this piece of legislation to be much better than it actually is.

So, from my perspective, in terms of Part 6, I ask the Minister: where is the stick? There is plenty of carrot. We want to see whether there is going to be an audit and a reporting duty on ACC, because the Government is giving some of these PCBUs a discount. There should be an onus on them, if they do not meet their obligations to keep their workers safe, to make sure that we can get that money back. Because if they are going to get a discount and they are not pulling their weight, we do not think that they should keep that discount. The taxpayer should get that money back.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I really do thank you for giving me this call, Mr Chair, because in my first call on this part, Part 6, I was about to put a question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that I really would like an answer to. I raised a similar question around a different clause that had the same effect, in Part 5, but the responsible Minister was not in the chair at the time, and I really do feel that if he had been, he would have given us an answer. There was a serious discussion that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had in quite a lot of detail around the injury prevention programmes that are funded or jointly undertaken by ACC and WorkSafe. I am referring now to clause 249 of Part 6, which amends the Accident Compensation Act. I was kind of in mid-flight asking the Minister this question when my last call finished, so I really appreciate the opportunity to put this question directly to the Minister.

Where the select committee came to was that we were so concerned to make our views known about this that we included it in the commentary. We got some advice from the officials about what it would mean, and the reason for that is that I had raised a concern that where currently ACC injury prevention programmes do have a requirement on them to reduce the overall impact of ACC levies on the work account—and that, some would say, is right and proper for ACC; I have got a question mark in my mind about that—what this bill does is that it actually applies that same thinking to WorkSafe injury prevention programmes. Why should I be worried about that? Well, actually, sometimes a good workplace injury prevention programme will actually increase the impact of ACC levies on the work account.

How does it do this? Well, it does this in two instances, in the main. The first is the perverse and strange impact on the ACC work account levy—the fact that some injuries are so expensive that if we are paying to support the person with the injury for the rest of their life, it can be more expensive than if the injury that they incurred had killed them at their workplace. As harsh as it is to discuss that in the debating chamber, it is just a reality that sometimes if someone dies in the workplace, which is what we are trying to prevent, that is less expensive for the work account of ACC than if they were seriously injured. If they are injured when they are a young person, it could have a lifetime effect on the work account of the ACC levies that is much larger than the payment that would be made, in fact, to their family if they had died. We do not want that. We do not want that perverse incentive.

We want to make sure that these workplace incentive programmes are saving people from dying, that they are bringing down that dreadful workplace fatality record that we have here in New Zealand, and that we are seeing that the deaths in agriculture, which we know have totalled 104 over the last 5 years, are reduced. So we do not want a workplace injury prevention programme that somehow does not pass muster because it cannot necessarily prove that it is going to actually lead to a reduction in the impact of the levy rates on the work account. That is example one.

Example two is with regard to occupational disease. These are things that people may not even know about at the time. A good workplace injury prevention measure might actually increase the education, and should actually increase people’s knowledge and education about occupational disease and the impacts on that, and it might lead to, therefore, more claims being made against the ACC levy work account. People understand that the symptoms that they are displaying some years down the track from the exposure—it might have been a chemical exposure. It might have been an exposure to asbestos. There are many kinds of hidden things in our workplaces that can cause people occupational disease, and that is often a long way down the track.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again on the Health and Safety Reform Bill. I have gone through to what I suppose is a very, very important part of this bill, and it relates to changes to the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. Again, not having the full background of it, I am skipping through this, trying to bring myself up to speed. Clause 140—no, it is not clause 140; it is clause 289, replacing section 140, as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 108, and it is in regard to regulations. There will be some, probably in the Green Party, who might want to prick their ears up on this. Section 140(1) states: “Subject to section 141, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Order in Council, make regulations for 1 or more of the following purposes: (a) prescribing organisms as genetically modified organisms for the purposes of this Act: (b) prescribing organisms as organisms that are not genetically modified organisms for the purpose of this Act:”. The point is that in dealing with health and safety, this legislation deals with the Environmental Protection Authority and the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation—some of which I am quite familiar with.

As a boysenberry grower, I deal with quite a few chemicals that, I have to say, I do not like touching. I use gloves and all the methods advised to make sure that I do not come into contact with them, and nor would anyone who would be working with me or for me. That is a high-risk situation, because although there are warnings on the packages—which you cannot see, I have to say, unless you have got a microscope—for the most part, most of them are known as eco-toxic and are things that you want to avoid all contact with. Whether or not we like it, they are part of the horticultural system, and if used correctly they are fine. But there is a risk in working with them. This piece of the legislation deals with that by trying to minimise the potential harm from that contact. But in clause 289, which amends section 140, the replaced regulations—these are the regulations that refer directly to GMOs. I have to say that there is a move afoot across the country, across the economy, down that pathway, and the new National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry includes reference to GM trees—presuming they are trees, anyway—and certainly imposes restrictions on local councils, many of which are up in arms about it. The point is that there is a move to push down that pathway. In the absence of any comprehensive discussion, I think it is irresponsible, absolutely.

What we have got here is the passage of legislation, under health and safety—and we know the connection with Pike River—but very quietly we have got reference here to another significant area of importance for our economy, and that is GMOs. The fact that our economy relies on a biological production system means that if we do move into this area, then there are significant implications for companies, for sectors, and for the country in terms of our branding. I want to ask the Minister in the chair, Simon Bridges, whether he can give an assurance that we are not moving one step further down the path to easing access for GMOs. Alongside that open exposure, through the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry, there is a lot of subversive and not so subversive activity from the likes of Federated Farmers and others that are saying that, actually, genetic engineering is quite a complex science, which I agree with and can partly understand. Actually, GM is not GM in many cases. The point is that there are those who think that is going to be the salvation of the primary production sector and they are pushing more down that path, without any consideration for the branding issues—

Hon Member: Replace Steffan.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That person over there should know, as a farmer. He should know better. We do not want to end up in a cul-de-sac where our high-quality, safe, high-value production systems are undermined by what may be a perception of us changing to a new production system. The point is that the regulations as amended, as referred to, and as prescribed here in this legislation may be—I do not know—opening the door to GM and GMOs.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 6 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to schedule 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1A

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to schedule 1A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 in the name of Denise Roche to schedule 1A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.

Noes 73

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule 1A be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 1A agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to schedule 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2A

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to schedule 2A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2A as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 2A as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 5 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to schedule 6 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 7

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 7 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Schedule 8

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 8 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The title of this bill is the Health and Safety Reform Bill, and that is what we thought we were going to get: genuine reform of our health and safety regime in New Zealand. Certainly, that is why members on this side of the House voted for this legislation at the first reading, because that is what we thought we were going to get and that is what New Zealand so desperately needs: genuine health and safety reform.

If you compare New Zealand’s rate of deaths and injuries at work per capita with any other comparable country, our record is woeful. We did not need the Pike River tragedy to realise that we needed genuine reform of our health and safety system, but it took Pike River to create the political impetus for that Government to be prepared to do anything about health and safety reform. But even in the absence of Pike River we knew that we needed reform of our health and safety systems, because we kill and maim more people at work than any other comparable developed nation.

So when the Government told us we were going to get a health and safety reform Act we thought that was brilliant, and we thought—when we saw this bill at its first reading—that it was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. We thought that it was based on the recommendations of the Government’s own Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and that it was based on the Australian model law. We thought that it looked quite good, and we thought that we were going to get genuine reform of health and safety.

How times have changed in the nearly 1½ years since those first reading speeches. How much things have changed, because that Government over there has shown its true colours and demonstrated that reform of the health and safety systems—reform that genuinely will improve health and safety so that workers have a real say about how health and safety regimes will operate in their workplaces, reform that is based on evidence, and the kind of reform that looks at the things that we know work and the things that have the greatest impact on health and safety in workplaces—has been thrown out the window because of politics. The National Government has bent over as far as it can to accommodate its supporters in the rural community and to accommodate people like the Talley’s Group, which came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and told us about how health and safety representatives were going to be the destruction of its business, as though people working in its business were for some reason going to want to destroy it from the inside.

So did the Government listen to the reasonable, sensible employers who came to the select committee and said: “We think this legislation looks pretty good; it could do with a few tweaks here and there.”? No. It listened to those who were opposed to the idea of genuine reform, as this title suggests—genuine reform of the health and safety regime in New Zealand. It listened to those who came along and said: “This legislation is an overreaction. This legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to what happened at Pike River.” That is what some of these employers and other groups came along and told us at the select committee. They were in the minority. It is not what the majority of submitters came and told us, but they were the ones that the Government listened to.

So really, this title has become a misnomer. This title has become completely misleading, because we no longer have genuine reform of the health and safety regime in New Zealand. We no longer have the type of reform that we actually need.

Andrew Bayly: We do—it’s called 247 pages’ worth.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If Andrew Bayly disagrees with me, then Andrew Bayly should get to his feet and take a call on clauses 1 and 2 of this bill, and tell me why I am wrong. If Andrew Bayly is not prepared to do that, and if Jonathan Young is not prepared to do that, and if any of the other National MPs who were on the select committee and who were prepared to water down this legislation and were prepared to weaken it and were prepared to do things that were asked of them by their special interest groups will not do that, then we have to believe on this side of the Chamber that, actually, they do not have an argument against us saying that this is not genuine reform any more. They actually know in their hearts that we are right and they are wrong. If they are not prepared to get up and tell us why we are wrong about this, then we have to believe that we are right and they are wrong.

I would like to talk a little bit about the commencement clause as well, because this is a rather complicated commencement clause. The different clauses of this legislation will commence at different times. We have got everything from commencement on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent all the way through to the final cut-off point of 1 January 2018. So that is over a period of 2½ years that this legislation will slowly be rolled out. That is understandable, actually. This is a large document. It is—

Andrew Bayly: 247 pages—comprehensive.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is 247 pages long, and Andrew Bayly reads every single one of them every night. It could have been comprehensive, Andrew Bayly. It could have been comprehensive, but, unfortunately, the National Government ripped the guts out of it, so it is not comprehensive any more. It is just a lot of paperwork for not a lot of substantive change.

But this commencement clause does have a number of different parts. I have looked closely at which clauses will commence immediately after the bill receives the Royal assent, and they are some of the more technical aspects.

Sue Moroney: Some of the more contentious parts.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Some of those aspects relate to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, as well. My colleague Sue Moroney says it is some of the more contentious parts. I am sure that will be part of her contribution on the commencement clause.

Most of the bill, actually, will come into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That is something that often makes members of Parliament a little bit nervous. It certainly makes the Regulations Review Committee a little bit nervous. There are members of the Regulations Review Committee in the Chamber and I would like to hear from them as well—about how commencement clauses that are brought into effect by Order in Council make them nervous—because what that does is it actually takes the legislative process out of Parliament’s hands and puts it into the Government’s hands.

I do not think that we would be able to support that approach on this side of the Chamber were it not for subclause (3) of clause 2, which says that “Any provision that has not earlier been brought into force comes into force on 1 January 2018.” So the Government cannot delay the commencement of any parts of this legislation past 1 January 2018. It is kind of a quid pro quo, so that Parliament knows that this legislation will be fully enacted by 1 January 2018. We will accept that it is practical for aspects of the legislation—a considerable chunk of the legislation, in fact—to be brought into force by Order in Council, by the Government, but because we know that that all has to be done over a 2½ year period, we will be able to accept that.

But the fact is that it does not matter how long it takes to enact this legislation—this is not the reform we were looking for. This is not what New Zealanders were promised. This is not what the families of the victims of the Pike River tragedy were promised. What they were promised, what we were promised, and what the people of New Zealand were promised was real reform—reform based on evidence, reform based on best practice, and reform based on overseas changes that have already been made on overseas legislation that has been working well for a number of years in a similar context to the New Zealand environment. That is what we were promised. That is what we thought we were going to get, but, sadly, because this Government has been prepared to play politics on health and safety and because this Government has been prepared to play politics with working people’s lives, this bill should no longer be called the Health and Safety Reform Bill. This should be called a list of promises that were made to the victims of one of the most horrendous workplace tragedies in New Zealand and that were broken by this National Government.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): As has been said many times in the course of this debate, this was our chance to get things right when it comes to workplace health and safety. And I am not talking about our chance—it was not Labour’s chance, and not New Zealand First’s or the Greens’ chance. It was the chance for this Parliament—every member in this Parliament—to get things right, in the face of one of the worst health and safety records that any OECD country has, in the aftermath of some of the worst tragedies we have had in workplaces in New Zealand.

It started, in most people’s living memory, with Pike River: 29 lives snuffed out because of hopeless management, total carelessness, and an appalling level of regulation and oversight by the Government agency responsible for doing so. There has been a succession of deaths—far too many—in one of our other crucial industries, the forestry industry. And then, since that time, there have been more than a hundred deaths in, arguably, our most important industry—agriculture and farming. So this was our chance as a Parliament, on behalf of the millions of voters who put us here, to reflect on the situation, take some positive steps, and get it right.

The great thing is that we were going so well. There was a consensus that had been reached. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that first started considering this bill, and there was a consensus. It was chaired by David Bennett at the time. There were other National MPs and MPs from plenty of other parties, and we were united in our purpose. We understood what our job was. We knew the gravity of the task in front of us, and we grasped it. We were making headway. The great thing is that at that time—and that was before the last election—we were in agreement. We were making a difference. We could see what the future looked like. We understood what the issues were and what was needed.

Things were going well even after the election, when the select committee resumed—different membership, different chair. Jonathan Young, the MP for New Plymouth, took it up. He is a responsible member who had led other select committees and was very good at weaving together a consensus—because that is what his track record has been. So we, quite rightly, had confidence that the Government was serious about seeing through the task of getting health and safety in New Zealand right.

But then in the last couple of months it changed. Something happened, and it was not on our side. Something happened with the Government. Those members got unsettled and they wanted to make a change. They have undermined one of the most important tenets of workplace health and safety—that is, effective representation by the workforce.

Anybody who has had anything to do with workplace health and safety—and, in particular, has had anything to do with improving workplace health and safety, often from a very bad starting point—knows that the starting point is the front-line workforce. It is their engagement and their understanding, how they are educated and what they get to make of it, their input into it and who represents them, and how their interests and their concerns and their issues are advocated. That is what is most important, and that is what the nervous Nellies in the National Government sought to undermine. If there is one thing that defines National, it is that National has never understood working New Zealanders. It does not get it. It does not understand it—never cared about it.

So now we are at the point, in this Committee stage, where we are being asked to sign off on a piece of legislation that does not respect its title. This is not health and safety reform. This will be a backwards step. Yes, there are some improvements in enforcement, a bit about extra powers about prohibition notices, but the thing that matters most, which is the engagement of working people with the risks and the hazards that surround them—that has been undermined. That is the most disappointing thing, and that is why, when it comes to the title of this bill, it no longer reflects the task that was before the select committee—the task that has been before this House. We will always look across the Chamber for the rest of this Parliament and say to those members opposite: “You have let down working New Zealanders.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

ANDREW LITTLE: You have actually let down a lot of—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

ANDREW LITTLE: Sorry. Those members, not you, Mr Chairman, have let down working New Zealanders. It is not just working New Zealanders they have let down; they have let down hundreds of thousands of businesses as well.

Big and small businesses have been in touch with us. I had a farmer on the phone to me today, saying that he cannot understand why the National Government has backed out of the issues about involving the workforce. He said that he was very proud of his farm. He was so proud and so pleased with the processes that he had put in place with the engagement of his workforce that he had got WorkSafe to come and have a look, come and audit it, and he was very pleased with the engagement of WorkSafe New Zealand. He was very pleased with the feedback that he got. He said that it gave him some advice, like things that could be improved, but he enjoyed dealing with it and he was proud to demonstrate the way he approached health and safety on his farm.

I want to talk about clause 2, the commencement clause, because I have never seen, though, admittedly, I have been in Parliament for only 4 and a bit years, a commencement clause that gives rise to so much uncertainty and that is so all over the place—more all over the place than the Māori Party—than I have seen in this clause here, clause 2. There are multiple parts to the commencement of it. Some parts come into force on the day after the date on which the Royal assent is given, and some of them are specified. There are more parts specified as coming into effect on the day after the Royal assent. Then there are other little bits carved out and they are saved for a different commencement date. Then there is this overriding thing that the rest of it will come into force by Order in Council, which is when the Minister and the Cabinet decide. It may not be all the rest of it; it will be bits and pieces as and when they want.

Well, that is ridiculous. This is hopeless. This is typical of this National Government. It is a piece of legislation that is going to affect 2.4 million New Zealanders and no one will know when, between now and 1 January 2018—which is proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 109—this is going to come into effect. Some bits will, much of it will not, and it is proposed that it will be at some time between now and 2018—2½ years away. What a ridiculous situation for New Zealanders to be in. What an appalling situation for that National Government to put this Committee in, to ask it to approve a commencement clause that is such a dog’s breakfast. No one is going to know which bits are in at what time—some time in the next 2½ years.

They sit there smirking and smugly laughing at each other because, as typifies the members opposite, they think when it comes to workplace issues it is all just a bit of a joke. You do not actually have to care. You just do stuff, you make promises, and then you break promises. You put stuff up, you tell people you want to be serious about it, and then you pull back because you are not really, because when push comes to shove, there is a set of interests that National will always give greatest priority to, and it will not be the interests of working people.

We see that in this legislation. We have seen it in its backing out on effective workplace representation. We see it now in a commencement clause that is going to cause just absolute confusion, and create an utter shambles for people who will look at this piece of legislation and wonder when on earth the whole lot of it is going to come into force. When are the bits relevant to them going to come into force? When are the butterfly farmers and the worm growers going to know that they are going to be part of a high-risk industry that has to have workplace representation, whereas their colleagues running a dairy farm or a beef farm are not going to have to? That is the question that is going to arise under this commencement clause. It is just all over the place.

Unfortunately, it exemplifies the worst of this bill. What should have been a bill that we championed, all of us; that we all rallied around; that we could at this point be celebrating as the achievement of this Parliament as a whole—we are left disappointed. We are left disappointed and unable to understand—even aside from this legislation’s glaring holes and big flaws—when it is going to start.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): We are coming close to the end of a 14-hour Committee stage where we have had some pretty robust discussions from this side of the benches, and only very few people on the National side have actually got up and spoken to this. But I would like to commend those people who actually have taken many, many calls to put their passionate voices forward.

The Health and Safety Reform Bill really is a bit of a cock-up, in my opinion. At the start of the select committee deliberations we said that New Zealand First was close to being able to support this bill, and we had a number—a great number—of Supplementary Order Paper amendments on the Table that we were hoping were going to get some sort of common-sense support for from the National Government, the Government that is supposedly out there supporting small businesses, with their ever-increasing load of increased compliance costs, to run their businesses. Under this new legislation, some family members, if they are in a farm workplace, are, potentially, going to be caught up, embroiled, in legal culpability. In the event that their husband goes out and has an accident, the spouse could lose the farm and be sued a lot of money, and potentially even spend some time in jail.

We have got the cock-up that has come out in recent times of what is the definition of—what is actually going to be—a high-risk work group in our society. We have come out with things like worm farms, butterfly farms, and lavender growing. I mean, goodness me! This bill had great expectations from the people of New Zealand. The submitters that we have heard from, going into this, were very excited about seeing some positive change. The rhetoric that the Government has thrown out towards us said that we were going to reduce health and safety incidents and death in our workplaces by 25 percent in the next 5 years.

Well, goodness me, this is a half measure of what is expected by the people. We hear the likes of Andrew Bayly in the Chamber here, saying that 97 percent of our country’s workers are actually employed in small businesses, yet this does not capture them. Thirty percent of all people employed in New Zealand are not going to be captured under the 20 workers threshold.

I have to say it is of some concern to New Zealand First, and particularly to me, that we have the situation where we put an amendment forward to reduce the number of workers able to actually get themselves a health and safety representative at work from 20 down to 10, and then, of course, we did not get the support from Labour—which was a big surprise—or those Greens. The reality is that if you are talking about real engagement and actually helping the workers have that bottom-up approach to supporting their workplaces, then that was the real opportunity to go and do it. They did not even get to vote for their amendment. It was wiped off the table, and yet there was no support there. It is a bit of an embarrassment when they are sitting up there yelling out about how well they have done to try to get the best deal they can, and they did not even support reducing the threshold of those workers from 20 down to 10. That is what it is about: getting the best that we can get for our workers.

I have to say that the Health and Safety Reform Bill would probably be better called the “Too Little, Too Late Bill”, because it has been a long time since the Pike River tragedy. It has been a total of 5 years. There has been a huge expectation out there within the community, the working groups of New Zealand, to get this bill sorted out once and for all, right first time. Yet we are finding ourselves with hiccups, where we cannot even get ourselves that representation—where small businesses cannot get their health and safety representative training paid for by the Government.

In retrospect, if you think about it, in many ways that health and safety representation training is partly paid for by the Government already, but it is paid for as a tax incentive. The Inland Revenue Department will give you a 100 percent deduction for that. However, it will not cover the likes of the cost of the travel, the time off work, and it certainly will not cover your accommodation costs.

For example, if you are living in Gore and you are wanting to travel to Christchurch to go and get your health and safety representative training done, that is going to be a cost, a huge burden—an extra cost in the ever-increasing costs of running small businesses in this country—that could be waived and that the Government could take responsibility for in actually paying for those costs. Of course, then people would not need to claim it back in their taxes, because it would be something that the Government is offering. If it is truly about health and safety reform, that would have been one measure that I would have thought the Government would have taken heed of and actually supported.

I have to say that there is a media report that has just come out this afternoon. It has got here: “Late addition of national security provisions concerns Law Society. The New Zealand Law Society has expressed its significant concerns at the last-minute addition to the Health and Safety Reform Bill of provisions for a closed material procedure for court proceedings where national security is involved.”

SUE MORONEY (Labour): The title of this bill is the Health and Safety Reform Act 2015—that is what it will become if it is passed. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway talked about how misleading that title actually is, because what we wanted was true reform, and now, unfortunately, we do not have it.

What we know about workplace health and safety—and I think it is probably something that we can all agree on in this Chamber—is that when short cuts are taken in the workplace over health and safety, that costs lives. Well, here we are, with this Government taking short cuts over health and safety in this bill—it will cost lives. It will cost lives, and all of those members opposite need to think about that because they have now been cast as the villains in this piece.

They have been cast as the villains in this piece, who have moved to specifically ensure that those people in small workplaces, which are workplaces with fewer than 20 employees, and those people in high-risk industries like farming are going to be excluded from having the very best representation—the very best representation. This is not just because I think it is the very best representation or because the Labour Party thinks that or the Green Party or New Zealand First think that; it is because the international evidence shows us that when workers get their own voice, and when they have a health and safety representative elected by them and trained to do the job properly, then that is going to be the most effective foil to poor health and safety in the workplace. That is going to be the very best preventative measure.

Many of the submitters who came before the select committee said just that. Not only the unions but many of the businesses came in support of this bill, in general, and were pleased that Parliament was united in supporting a comprehensive approach to health and safety reform. That is what the title of the bill was at the outset, and that is what we genuinely believed that all of us wanted to achieve.

I have got to say, having been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that that consensus held for a very, very long time. For almost a year and a half that consensus remained. And then—well, actually, I will tell you the minute that I saw that consensus start to wobble: it was when Judith Collins came and subbed in on the select committee one day. She was kind of there by accident, but, boy, did she make a change to what was going on in that select committee. Her one, accidental visit to that select committee while subbing in for another member, I believe, changed everything. I believe that changed everything because, suddenly, she was there questioning the officials, questioning whether the Minister actually had his act together over this bill, and causing mayhem—causing mayhem—in the select committee room. The other MPs from the National Party in that select committee room sat there dumbfounded. They were not quite sure exactly how to respond.

I have got to say that Jonathan Young, the chairperson of that select committee, did an awfully good job of retaining some measure of decorum in a chaotic situation for the National members. But here was one of their colleagues questioning the wisdom of whether the Government should even go down this path at all with health and safety.

That was the minute I heard and saw the consensus start to slip—that was the minute that it happened. Christopher Bishop laughs, but he is the only one over there who is actually finding it humorous at all. The rest of them are deadpan.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The title and commencement.

SUE MORONEY: Sorry, the title and commencement. Right, so the title and commencement—why I raise these issues is because it does all come back to the title, which is about health and safety reform. We genuinely did believe that we were embarking on that journey together as a Parliament, and for almost all of the time that has been the case. It has been in only very recent times that that has changed. Why has that changed? Well, it has changed because of politics. Politics have been put in front of the principle of having the best health and safety practices.

Chris Bishop: Come on.

SUE MORONEY: Everyone knows that. Well, Christopher Bishop seems to be the only person who does not know it, but everyone else—

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. I have to say that I agree with previous speakers that the title potentially does not necessarily reflect what the bill does.

I agree with the previous speaker, Sue Moroney, that where we started out on this bill was with a lot of goodwill right across the House, and with an intention to make good health and safety law that kept people safe at work: people like the nurses, who care for our sick and our fragile in our hospitals; people like the home-care assistants, who may work in people’s homes caring for the elderly, the frail, and the disabled; people like those who brave the sea and collect fish that we buy to eat; and people who work on farms producing the meat that we export and that we also buy for ourselves. These are the people who invest their bodies on a daily basis in the work that they do, providing for all of us, and we as legislators—as people who are working on this legislation—have a duty of care to them to provide legislation that keeps them safe at work.

I thought that reform, as in the title of the Health and Safety Reform Bill, meant it would make things better, because that is what we intended to do. That is why we were picking up the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and why we were picking up the recommendations from the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety—to put them into legislation that would actually make things better. That is what I thought reform meant. I agree with Andrew Little, I think it was, who said that we had had a united front on this right from the start, but the reform part has actually sort of fallen away, and what we have got is something that is not reflected in the title. It is probably more like a “Broken Promises Bill” more than a Health and Safety Reform Bill.

We have had families from the Pike River mine—we have had Bernie and Kath Monk come and speak to us last week. We had families who have lost their sons, their husbands, or the father of their children come to speak to us last week about what they considered to be the broken promises that are in this bill. That, I think, is a much more accurate reflection of the title of this bill. These were the people—these were the people—who were saying to us: “Our loved ones will not have died in vain if we can have legislation that actually does protect people at work.”

What they were saying was that to exclude workplaces with fewer than 20 workers from being able to even ask for a health and safety rep, let alone a health and safety committee—these were ways, and they knew that these were ways, that would keep people safe at work. Sons, fathers, husbands—it would have kept them safe at work, and yet we have failed. We are getting to the end of this Committee of the whole House stage, despite the fact that we have tried to put forward Supplementary Order Papers—

Carmel Sepuloni: There are three more speeches to give on this.

DENISE ROCHE: OK. Well, we are not coming to the end of the Committee stage, but we are getting through it—we have been through a lot of the schedules—and what we have seen is a constant rejection of Supplementary Order Papers that could have made it a little bit better.

I do not understand why the bill has come back to the Committee of the whole House with a whole host of changes that we did not even think about in the select committee, which strikes me as a very undemocratic process. To rock up to the Committee of the whole House with a whole bunch of stuff that nobody has actually discussed before and say: “This is what’s going to be in the bill.” just makes a mockery of the fact that we have been through a very full submission process. So maybe this is the “Anti-Democracy Bill”—

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to speak to the issue that has been raised or emphasised today by the New Zealand Law Society. Nowhere in the version of the bill that went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that people submitted on was there a reference to people being able to be tried in respect of offences where they could be convicted on the basis of evidence they did not hear and that their lawyer could not see, either. Those provisions were inserted at the select committee stage after submissions had closed and they were not even referred to by the select committee when it was drawing the attention of this House to the amendments that were being made to the legislation. Supplementary Order Paper 108 then makes further amendments to those provisions and I want to describe, if I have time, what the Law Society is saying about them, because it says—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am afraid that these have not been discussed in the Committee stage. What we are talking about now is the title and commencement, and one needs to tie the debate back to that. If we look at Speakers’ ruling 127/5, there is some latitude, however, to summarise those things that have been discussed during the course of the Committee stage. This is new material you are bringing up, which has not been discussed by this Committee.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This was raised by Jacinda Ardern in the debate on Part 4.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will listen very carefully.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Health and Safety Reform Bill does not in its title say that it is taking away the right to a fair trial. That is the effect of these provisions, according to the Law Society, and it recommends the removal of the provisions to await the outcome of an inquiry by the Law Commission in respect of national security information. The Law Society says that the effect of the provisions is very broad because they apply to investigations by the police, not just by security agencies, and that the definition of “classified security information” is very broad. It makes the point that none of this was subject to a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet because it was introduced late in the process at select committee, and neither were the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but what you are referring to was not part of the Committee’s consideration—and I am referring to the Committee of the whole House. I am listening very carefully to what the honourable member is saying and I ask you to tie it back to the commencement and title—that is what we are on—and the peroration, which is a summing up of those things that have been discussed within the Committee of the whole House.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I do note the Minister trying to influence the Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Oh, no.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. The member will sit. You will withdraw that comment. There is no influence whatsoever on the Chair by any member of this Committee. This is impartial material and I get my advice from the Clerk. All right?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Law Society makes the point that the commencement of this legislation ought to be delayed, and this is within the date of—there is a variety of commencement dates provided for, as Andrew Little has already addressed in this debate. The Law Society is saying that these provisions ought not to come into effect until the Law Commission has reported back. It is most unusual—most unusual—that we would in this Parliament pass legislation that took away the right of an accused to hear the evidence that was being used against them, and most rare for the court not to be able to challenge the validity of doing that, and that is what the Law Society says is happening here.

I want to turn to another point. The exclusion of farms, essentially, from the ambit of organisations that need to have worker representatives is part of a continuing trend by this Government exempting the farming sector. We saw it in respect of emissions pricing: 50 percent of New Zealand’s emissions come from—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, Mr Chair, I think it is—I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, it must be in order for me, when the Government is excluding the farming sector, to point out—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are not talking about emissions, and that was not part of the debate. You have got 5 seconds remaining.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not going to bother.

JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I am speaking on the commencement clause of the Health and Safety Reform Bill. Many, many people have lost their lives in order for this piece of legislation to be produced—29 of them at Pike River and hundreds and hundreds of others—because by any First World standard we have had inadequate health and safety provisions.

If I go back to 1992—and I have referred to that—I quote here what the member said: “The proposed requirements for safety and health committees and representatives would have been totally confused. The accountability structures would most certainly have been confused if some of those amendments had been accepted by the Committee.” The member goes on: “The National Government took out these parts because it happens to believe that workplaces and the workplace environment is best managed by the employers having No. 1 responsibility to put what the legislation clearly establishes.” That failed. That failed the mining industry and it failed workers in New Zealand. The National Government has once again failed to produce proper health and safety legislation.

How can we support the commencement of this bill? It is called a reform bill. One of the previous speakers said: “I went to Google to quote it. ‘Reform—to make changes in order to improve it.’ ” How can we claim that we are making improvements when alpaca farming, bird breeding, pet breeding, rabbit farming, and worm farming are considered high risk, and sheep and cattle farming, dairy farming, tree pruning, thinning in a forest, and explosives laying are considered low risk? It is bizarre and ridiculous.

We are speaking on the commencement of a bill that will not necessarily take us forward in terms of health and safety across this country. I cannot say it is a joke, because that would be dishonouring the hundreds of people who have lost their lives due to failed health and safety, to bring us to this point here in the House when we hoped—and the Labour Party supported the legislation’s referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—we were making real progress. It really was a reform bill. That is what we hoped. Now we believe it has failed.

I am not sure whether the commencement date of 2018 is right or wrong, other than to say it is a long, long way down the track from 1992, when the National Government brought in health and safety legislation and all its principles, and a long way down the track from 1997 and the other amendments that have taken place.

I feel very compelled to do everything I can to get it right. It was not long before the Pike River disaster that I tried to raise the issues myself with the Minister. Assurances of proper process and proper oversight were given, but to no avail. We have, in Opposition, the absolute responsibility to point out every fault in this piece of legislation, to remind the Government that it failed in 1992—the same ridiculous, pathetic excuses about workplace representation. What an arrogant, arrogant approach, to say that employees do not know what is safe and what is unsafe and have no wisdom in the workplace.

Mr Chairman, I say to you and to this Committee that I have learnt, as an employer, to listen to the people at the coalface, to listen to the people who are doing the dangerous work, and to ask them and get guidance from them as to how to improve—but no. The vast majority of workers working in small to medium sized enterprises up and down this country will not be covered by the majority of provisions in this legislation because they are in workplaces with fewer than 20 employees—in spite of the percentages I hear from the Minister and the Government.

I do not know what the true figures are; I do not believe many of the figures coming from the Government. Can I say of the commencement, which is the clause that I am referring to here, that I have concerns that if we support this in the way that the legislation is going to be put in place, we are not—

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call in this debate around the title and commencement clauses of the currently named Health and Safety Reform Bill. I want to pick up on my colleague’s point, which has been made consequently by Damien O’Connor, about the meaning of “reform” being “to make it better”—to act on the unnecessary deaths that are happening in our workplaces as well as the injuries, and the fact that in the last 5 years there have been 104 deaths in agriculture in this country.

This legislation was prompted by the royal commission that was established in response to the Pike River mine tragedy and the subsequent Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety, which both recommended that we as a country needed stronger worker participation in our legislation to ensure that we had safe workplaces to ensure that these unnecessary deaths would stop. So my suggestion is that “Reform” is inappropriate—that actually, as it has been characterised by the Council of Trade Unions, this is a bill that waters down those protections. “Waters down” is more appropriate.

The bill that was discussed by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, where there were so many submissions made and so many people urged this House to pass legislation that honoured the dead and protected those still living—that was upheld, and the committee was working in that light. The committee was working towards legislation that would truly reform, and then, at the last minute, what we have been given in this Committee is a piece of legislation that actually waters down existing provisions. Under today’s law any business, regardless of size—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Title and commencement. Come back to that.

JAN LOGIE: Sure. This is referring directly to the title and the point around reform and the fact that this is a watering down, because the existing law requires employee participation in the system regardless of the size of the workplace.

For this Government to introduce legislation that puts 20 employees as the limit and then some categorisation that is entirely opaque to this Committee around “high risk” is not doing an honour. It is not reforming. It is not what we consider to be the health and safety reform that is required, because we know that participation is at the core of what will make our workplaces safer. That is the essential part that is missing at the moment: the protection for workers to have a safe voice. That requires systems. It does not happen naturally. It is not happening in workplaces without that designated position.

We are hearing from employers. They are saying it is happening when clearly it is not, because people are dying in their workplaces. They are saying that workers are speaking up and have the opportunity to participate, but they are not because they are worried about their jobs and about being able to put food on the table. Their voices are not being heard because there is not a protected position.

This bill is not delivering the reform that is required to ensure that participation and to ensure the possibility of having safer workplaces. That, to my mind, is dishonouring the memory of the dead and is—I do not know. It is spitting on the hopes of those families who came to us and said that this legislation was their hope to have meaning out of that tragedy. To be in this Chamber and be debating the concept of this as being reform when it is clearly not is just so very deeply disappointing. I do hope that the Government has an epiphany and that somehow from here something changes.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I just acknowledge my colleague Jan Logie from the Green Party, who has just resumed her seat, and say that her words really took me back to the initial announcement of the first explosion at Pike River mine. This whole Parliament was in agony, not knowing what had happened and not understanding it, but we all felt totally united in grief and support at such a tragedy.

That grief and support turned to anger as people, particularly Damien O’Connor and Kevin Hague, brought to this House the issues that have driven this health and safety reform legislation. We learnt of the disregard for the well-being of the people who worked in that mine. It was a pretty terrible place to work anyway, with the greatest respect to coalminers. It is a hard life, actually, but the employers there—or the people who operated the mine, because some of them were contractors, of course—seemed to have a total disregard for the well-being of their staff. So the anger in this Parliament grew.

It is not often that every party in this House says that this is an issue we can address together. I think it gave us, as members of Parliament, confidence that when the health and safety reform legislation was introduced, it had been driven by an understanding that things were wrong and needed to be made right and that this Parliament was the right place to do it. We had the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy, which did a very rigorous investigation that uncovered yet more tragedies that we had to learn of. Those 29 Pike River mineworkers lost their lives not through any disregard by themselves—they lost their lives because they went to work and were killed on the job.

We wanted the findings of the royal commission, the commitment of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—and the Prime Minister’s commitment, actually—and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s work to bring back to this House a bit of legislation that meant we could all say that this was the best we could possibly do, because that is what those dead workers and their families deserved from this Parliament. The title of this legislation, the “Health and Safety Reform Bill”, did reflect what this Parliament wanted to see in the legislation. We wanted to see reform of a system that failed for too many people, a system that allowed people to turn up to work in the morning and to never come home again. This Parliament said we did not want that system to continue; we wanted reform.

Then somehow along the line, what happened? What happened, Minister, to your personal commitment, which I heard in this House on more than one occasion? What happened to the Prime Minister’s commitment?

Dr Megan Woods: Judith Collins.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I think it sounded like Judith Collins led a bit of a rebellion, and the lives of not just the Pike River mineworkers but the lives of other people in New Zealand who had died just doing their job seemed to count for less than National’s internal battle about what should be required of whom in this legislation.

We started hearing that some groups of workers would not be entitled to the same level of protection—it was too onerous on the employers or the standard was not high enough. The title reflects reform; it does not reflect: “Well, we think we’ll have a little tinker.” We wanted something that was the best-possible effort. We did not want a watered-down version of the best-possible effort. We did not want something that protected the National Party voting base or reflected individual misunderstandings that some National MPs have about what the best system is. I think the Minister knows what the best system is, and I think the Minister knows that this is not it. This is not the true reform that this Parliament wanted and deserved. I am really disappointed that, as a result, Parliament is divided on a bill that we should be united on.

I want to talk now on the commencement provision, which is the other part of the debate that we are having. We have heard already, several times—

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have canvassed quite widely the issues. This has become quite repetitive on clauses 1 and 2. On many occasions I have asked members to come back to clauses 1 and 2. [Interruption] Order! I am speaking. The Committee of the whole House can decide, so the question is that the question be now put.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This debate started less than an hour ago. It is a debate on the preliminary clauses, which gives members an opportunity to be reasonably wide ranging in the contributions that they make on this part of the debate. We have had only a small number of members making a contribution so far, and a large number of members on this side of the Chamber—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I hear the member—[Interruption] I hear the member. I have been making a note of those who have sought calls. I have given preference to those people who are on the select committee and those who have had calls during the course of the debate. This debate has been going since last week—since last Wednesday. When we are on the title and commencement clauses, these are the preliminary clauses—although there is some latitude, and I actually quoted the Speakers’ ruling at the time, which was Speakers’ ruling 127/5. They are for members to make concluding remarks. It is a summarising of concluding remarks. The debate has become quite repetitive. On a number of occasions I have asked members to come back to clauses 1 and 2. The Committee will decide whether we accept a closure motion or not.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Motion agreed to.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have had on a number of occasions recently evidence that the ACT member is often offsite when the whip—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments. This has been dealt with some time ago. When a party whip casts a vote for another party, as one would well know, it is their integrity that is at stake. If they were to cast a vote knowing that that person was not in the precincts of Parliament, then that would be a very serious matter and one—[Interruption] Order! And it would be one of privilege. The Government’s third whip has cast a vote and that is to be accepted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Health and Safety at Work Bill, the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), and the WorkSafe New Zealand Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 109.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.