Curran Clare: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 August 2015. Volume:708;Page:6129. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.