O'Connor Damien: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14601. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is not often I get up in the Chamber here and praise the Government for a piece of legislation but in Part 2 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill I have to acknowledge that it is making real progress in spite of Part 1 not including as of right worker representation on the board of WorkSafe New Zealand. We have provisions in here that ensure that workers are able to contribute to workplace health and safety and that is good but let us not get all teary-eyed about this and think that the Government has moved on and is all for workers. In clause 27 the bill has in new section 19ZH and later in section 19ZJ a perfect balance. It is one that protects the employer’s right to instruct workers to go and work elsewhere if part of a mine or part of a workplace is shut down for health and safety reasons. So it can instruct them to go and work somewhere else presuming of course that they have got the skills and the health and safety training. But then of course the bill has rightfully—which is why I am saying that it is a balance—included protection here of site health and safety representatives in performing their functions and powers.I speak from some experience having been a shift delegate at a mine in Western Australia. I was responsible for shutting down the mine when it was too unsafe. When dust got to a point where we could not operate safely then I had to stop operations. It is not an easy job for any individual to stop operations—to intervene and say: “This is unsafe. We should stop work.” There is huge pressure not just from the employer the foreman or the leading hand but also from fellow workers who particularly if they are on a bonus system say: “Oh come on. Let’s get on with it. Look it’s OK—it’s not that unsafe.” The pressure comes from everywhere on the individual the site representative who is going to make a judgment on health and safety issues. So this provision in here does provide some protection from senior executives or from anything that might happen but you cannot actually legislate for what is peer pressure in such a workplace. That is why it is important to have very clear codes of practices and regulations of course supporting them. That is where the 1992 legislation fell down of course. There were promises of a code of practice—oh yes—and nothing eventuated.So we have as I say a balanced piece of legislation in Part 2 protecting both the employer who instructs the workers to get on and do something else if it is thought to be unsafe and the worker who intervenes to point out a danger and stop work or stop operations so that they are not unfairly or unduly discriminated against or penalised in any way.Moving on to the issue of inspectors as I said before the harsh reality of what we have learnt from Cave—sorry from Pike River. I have to say that was a Freudian slip perhaps. Cave Creek was another terrible disaster in my West Coast region where the Government had some responsibility. At Pike River we had as I say at the time of the disaster two mine inspectors. We have three now. I think any fair-minded New Zealander would say that that is not huge progress. [Interruption] Oh four sorry. There are three inspectors and there is the chief inspector of course who is basically tied to the office—Andrew Little: You’ve got to have a boss.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes. Sorry the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour did correct me. There is one chief inspector and three inspectors. So while that person is tied up rightfully with the development of regulations and of codes with a huge amount of paperwork which was quite frankly inadequate 2 or 3 years ago—and I have to say that the person they have appointed is first class. He is absolutely firstclass and I know that he will follow through on all the recommendations of the royal commission if he is given a chance. He will also implement a very robust mines inspectorate if given a chance but he has not been given the resources. He I know is too professional to go out and criticise because he is a loyal public servant in the tradition of public servants and he knows his responsibility and he will carry it out but if he does not have the resources he too is going to be hamstrung just as the two inspectors at the time of the Pike River tragedy were hamstrung. They were totally frustrated.Clause 33 inserts new section 41A “Inspectors may issue prohibition notices in relation to mining operation”. That means that if they believe it is unsafe they can issue a notice. Indeed some ask why it did not happen at Pike River. In fact some ask why it did not happen at the Spring Creek Mine. I do not think we should forget about the reality that the Government’s own State-owned enterprise was operating an underground mine not too far from Pike River as the crow flies. It was shut down for 6 months after the Pike River tragedy—6 months without a tonne of coal being brought out—because the inspectorate had not been able to instruct that mine to maintain the standards that were needed for health and safety. The question I have in all of this is that if the inspectorate does not carry through with its duties if it is unable to do so who then is accountable for any failure? I have to say that today we ask the Government why it is not owning up to accountability in some form—it might be token in fact given the terrible loss of life—for the mistakes that were made through the Government’s own agency the Department of Labour. We have today asked why the Government has not considered it a fair and moral action to pay the families something in recognition of Government failure and in recognition of the families’ loss.So in setting up the inspectorate in Part 2 and providing inspectors and reinforcing them with the ability to close a mine if something is deemed unsafe should they fail to do so in the future—and God help them I hope they are never in that situation again—who then should be held accountable for that? The Minister dare I say it should be accountable if he or she does not find the resources to run a proper mines inspectorate. That was the case. We have got a reasonable expectation from the Pike River families right now that the Government on behalf of people should be held to account and that perhaps there should be a payment to them—not as any compensation; no one could compensate them for their loss—in recognition of responsibility and I think that the very least that could happen is that the Government should front up with that. Mr Chairman I know that we are not talking about that in Part 2 but we must ask the question that in implementing regulations and passing legislation if the bill has failed to be carried through with the intent that we have passed it with then who should pay a penalty or who should be held accountable for that? I have to say that we have seen none of that so far from the terrible failures at Pike River from the well-documented failures—Hon Judith Collins: The Minister resigned.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The then Minister of Labour did resign; I accept that. Yes that Minister resigned and Ministers have apologised but accountability goes beyond that Minister and the Minister who is interjecting has not been accountable for anything. Coming back to the bill here—the Minister did tempt me Mr Chairman. Can I say that in passing the legislation if the Minister bothered to read it she would see that we are passing over to inspectors obligations and powers that we expect to be carried through and if they are not carried through—if they do not do the job that we know is needed—then who should be held to account? If the resources have not been provided from the Government then the Government should be held to account. If there is tragic loss of life what should we say to and what should we do for those families? I say thatwe should make a payment to them and that Minister should front up and support that given that she is one on the front bench who has so far ignored that reasonable expectation.