Bayly Andrew: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBayly Andrew: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:6043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): This is the first occasion I have had to talk on this bill and I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Michael Woodhouse the chairmanship of Jonathan Young all my co-members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the officials and the people who submitted on the bill and provided their time rather generously. I believe that the select committee has operated in a constructive and pragmatic way in order to achieve a bill that we are proud of. However personally I must say that I am disappointed with some members of the Opposition who have sought to make political capital out of this bill. It is unconscionable and absolutely unnecessary. Of all the issues in this bill covering 240 pages—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come to Part 3.ANDREW BAYLY: —I think it is important to note that we as a committee agreed on virtually all of them.Before I turn to address some of the specific issues in this bill I want to first circle back to this issue of culture. If you strip away all the words in this bill what we have sought to do is to achieve a change in culture so that in every workplace in every business throughout all of New Zealand everyone in that place starts to think and work safely to create the right environment to keep our people safe. So the question is: how do we bring about that cultural change?This bill continues the requirement that the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) has a primary obligation to ensure a safe working practice. That has not changed. What has changed is that in this bill we have also inserted a requirement for workers to take reasonable care in the workplace in order to keep themselves safe. Just as important what we have asked workers to do is that in the way they are conducting themselves in the workplace they do not have any adverse impact on their colleagues. Previously the only group that was responsible was the PCBU but in effect this bill introduces a triumvirate of responsibility between the PCBU the worker and the colleagues and that is how we are going to bring about a cultural change.The next issue I would like to address is whether there should be any flexibility in the way that businesses conduct their health and safety practices—specifically this issue of firms with fewer than 20 people which has become rather vexed and political in its engagement. I am disappointed with the misinformation on this aspect. So let us go back to history. When this bill was initially introduced into this Parliament it borrowed heavily from the Australian model law. If you look at the industrial situation in Australia it is dominated by large companies with a heavy union influence. This is not the case in New Zealand—97 percent of all New Zealand businesses employ fewer than 20 people.Some members in this Committee seem to have a very jaundiced view on how small businesses operate in New Zealand. Small businesses are very collegial and have a team environment. In fact for these small businesses to operate in any other manner would lead to their non-survival. What we in the committee are focused on is that we want everyone—everyone—in that business to start thinking about and working on health and safety issues instead of leaving it to just one individual who is appointed to take up the cudgel for everyone else in that business. So for people employing fewer than 20 people what this bill does is introduce the possibility that they can be flexible about the way they are going to manage their health and safety environment what policies they are going to put in place and how they are going to monitor it.In the absence of active engagement by the PCBU with the workers—and there is a statutory requirement in the bill and a fine of up to $100000 if they do not—workers will still be able to follow the right set out in the very prescriptive process in schedule 1A of the bill. There is no other option for those companies that do not engage that have greater than 20 employees or that operate in high-risk industries. This involves the lawful appointment of health and safety reps and the lawful appointment of health and safety committees and I totally agree that in those circumstances those arrangements should survive.