Rich Katherine: Third Readings 
Rich Katherine: Third Readings 
[Volume:635;Page:6811] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to stand in the House and take part in the third readings of these five bills. It is clear that the job at hand was quite an ambitious one. Members will recall that we started off with the Energy Safety Review Bill which attempted to create the five bills that we are debating finally in the House today. 
It is an example of how members of Parliament can work really well together as a whole. National of course did not support the first draft of this legislation but through the select committee process there was around the table a genuine desire to come up with something suitable for the industry—for all of the electrical workers plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers in this country. 
I would also like to acknowledge the work of Minister Harry Duynhoven because it was clear to me that he had a genuine interest in coming up with the best law for the industry. He did not have that traditional approach: “This is my bill. It’s right; everybody else is wrong. Push it through.” He had a genuine belief in the select committee process; in the role of taking submissions and listening to people and making changes as a result. In one instance he even came to our committee and we were able to have a round-table discussion about parts of the bill. That was hugely useful and enabled us to forge a new pathway for the bill. In contrast some Ministers I have to say think that not communicating with chairs and slagging them off publicly is the way forward. I believe that a better way is to work closely on issues like this that matter to the industry. 
Initially the legislation began as the Energy Safety Review Bill. It was a little ambitious and although there had been some consultation with the industry there were 30000 electrical workers who felt that they had not had their say sufficiently. So one of the things we found with the submissions process was that some members of the community were coming before us and getting involved in the political process for the first time. It was the first time they had appeared before a select committee and made a submission. Plumbers in their 50s and 60s and electricians who had never thought about engaging in politics before were concerned about what was in the legislation. It was great to see a different section of New Zealand society coming and having a chat with us. I know they did that up and down the country with their various MPs as well. 
We found that we needed an innovative way to develop a new path for this legislation. We decided that the best thing to do was rip the bill in half and to focus on electricity in the first instance and plumbing in the second. The aim was to get the first part back to the House earlier and dealt with but it is nice today that we are looking at five bills together. 
The original Energy Safety Review Bill amended five different Acts at once: the Electricity Act 1992 the Gas Act 1992 the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act 1989 the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976. If we look around the House each and every one of us wants a safe environment for energy. No one here wants anyone to turn on the lights at night and be electrocuted. Each and every one of us has an expectation about the standard of safety that New Zealanders should rely on when they are dealing with electricity or with plumbing etc. 
In this legislation we were revamping occupational regulations and regimes and most of the debate ended up being about whether to retain registration. I think there were some within officialdom who wanted to move to a tidier way of doing things and just have licensing. The argument was that that made it easier for the general public to discern the standard and qualifications of the people whom they were commissioning to do either electrical or plumbing work. Registration ended up being one of the main things that concerned those working in the industry. 
It soon became clear to all members of the select committee that people who had registered as a plumber or as an electrician felt immensely proud of that registration and looked at it as the pinnacle of their qualifications. Even though some plumbers who came before our select committee had not looked at a drain in 20 years some of these old guys said: “I’m still proud to be a plumber and I still want to be registered as a plumber. I still carry my card.” I mentioned that in my second reading speech but I know that the Minister is also very in tune with this. I know that Minister Duynhoven who has registered as an electrical worker still carries his card around in his wallet. 
The Electrical Workers Registration Board said: “Registration is the capstone of our members’ qualifications.” One of the things that I think the select committee can be very proud of is that we had the debate on that issue and we retained registration for the industry. 
There was also concern about the removal of classes. Some electricians said: “Well if the Electrical Workers Registration Board is going to determine classes we feel anxious about what those classes of registration might be.” So once again the select committee made the change and we retained that provision. 
We also made changes to the regularity with which licences have to be renewed. It was initially proposed as 2 years but we decided that that was going to bring too much of a regulatory burden and that is why we pushed it out to 5 years. I think in doing that we will still preserve the safety regime that we have as well as minimise some of the costs—including red tape costs—for many of the workers who keep our economy going. 
We also made some changes to the disciplinary procedures which I think will speed things up and make a difference for those who commit minor breaches as well. 
It is important to say some thank yous. I would like to thank members of my select committee and as I said before there is not a dud around that committee. They are people who have come around the table with a genuine desire to create law that works and to listen to submissions. Although we will still have our debates we will act on those. I thank the Minister and the officials. I think the officials genuinely enjoyed having the ability to go back and do a second and third round of consultation. I thank Evelyn Cole Becky Whimp Jim Green Michael Chapman and Scott Murray in particular because I think they did a very good job of distilling down some quite complex law and technologies into a form that the select committee could understand. 
Before this legislation none of our members sat around thinking about drains plumbing and electricity but I have to say that I have really enjoyed working on this legislation. My colleague Chris Auchinvole who came in to chat to me just before said that he really enjoyed working on this legislation as well. 
Although I am sure there will be some things that are not 100 percent as the industry would like I believe that this is a good example of the select committee process at work. It has developed law and has taken the time to iron out potential pitfalls to iron out potential loopholes and to put something in place for the industry that is simple practical and a recognition of the way many plumbers and electrical workers feel about their work. That is why we are particularly glad that registration has been retained. Thank you.