Hague Kevin: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Thank you very much Mr Chair; I appreciate your perception of my pleading because I have a number of comments to make. Back at the first reading of this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill I indicated a number of concerns about Part 1 and I want to talk about how those concerns have or have not been addressed through the select committee process and the detail of the bill that is before us right now.The first of those concerns relates to how the board of WorkSafe New Zealand is to be comprised and I speak therefore in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of Andrew Little. Dave Feickert in particular is a mine safety expert. He talks about what he calls the triangle of safety and draws the attention of this House and the industry to the fact that successful mining industries—those that are safe—have this thing called the triangle of safety where there is responsibility taken for health and safety in the mine by the Government by employers and by workers. The example that we have talked about previously in other readings of this bill is in relation to inspectors. We have said that there is a role for the employers the workers and the Government in the inspection of a particular mining operation for compliance with health and safety regulations and requirements. This is the key. In the triangle of safety we expect each to take responsibility and to recognise and own responsibility for health and safety.What that means in relation to this new entity WorkSafe New Zealand which we expect to be the leader in workplace health and safety is that we want each of those entities to have a sense of ownership of that organisation. That is why the task force recommended a different model for the composition of the board of this organisation. It recommended what I would call a representative model which is the kind of structure that Andrew Little sets out in his Supplementary Order Paper. Instead the Government has chosen what I would call a reflexive model—that is a model in which the members of the board of that organisation are responsible not to organisations from employers and from workers but instead they are all responsible to the Minister—and that is antithetical to the idea of having a tripartite sense of ownership and responsibility for health and safety.I do not think that the select committee heard a single submission supporting that reflexive model. Instead we heard both from unions and from employers supporting the recommendations of the task force that the structure for the board of WorkSafe should be a representative one. If we think about it that is the democratic model actually comprising that board. The reflexive model that the Minister has used is certainly appropriate for the boards of some entities but for an entity like this which we expect to have that tripartite sense of ownership it is the wrong model. When we asked officials why it was that despite all of the submissions that we received and despite the recommendation of the task force for a representative model they had selected a reflexive one for us to have in this bill they effectively came back and said: “We just prefer it.” There were no reasons given. So I echo Sue Moroney’s call for the Minister to explain the reasons that he has chosen a reflexive model rather than a representative one.So fundamentally this part of the way the board is comprised is wrong. I have to say that I suspect that the reason that the Government has got it wrong is that it does not want the triangle of safety. The Government does not want to share responsibility to share decision making with workers and employers. [Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to hear the honourable member Kevin Hague.KEVIN HAGUE: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson; I appreciate the opportunity to speak further on this matter. What I have suspected all along is that fundamentally the royal commission was recommending a response that was a regulatory response which would involve the Government intervening more in the affairs of employers in workplaces and this is a Government that comes from a tradition that actually deregulated health and safety in the first place as my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has spoken about just now in the debate. I believe that this Government is allergic to the idea of regulating more in order to achieve ends in the workplace. It is allergic to the idea of greater union involvement it is allergic to the ideaof sharing power and that is why I believe the Government has chosen this reflexive model.I want to talk also about clause 10 of the bill which sets out the functions of WorkSafe New Zealand. In my view and in the Green Party’s view this clause still does not go far enough. I appreciate that the clause now does pretty well reflect the recommendations from the task force. But my point is that when we now compare this list of functions which include the verbs “advise” “make recommendations” “monitor” “develop”—but not “enforce”—“provide guidance” and “promote and support” these are all words that describe the way that the Department of Labour was going about its business at the time of the Pike River disaster. If we had gone to the Department of Labour on the day before the Pike River disaster and asked its staff: “Please describe the functions that you believe your organisation has in respect of workplace health and safety.” they would have given us a list pretty much like this.The fact is that when the royal commission examined the adequacy of the Department of Labour’s role in respect of Pike River it delivered a damning verdict. It said that the model of work the approach that the Department of Labour took to that work was inadequate to actually ensure compliance with the legislation and with the regulations that existed at that time. The department’s working-alongside way of working which is pretty much the model that is outlined here in clause 10 was inimical to the achievement of workplace health and safety.The basic problem that is created by deregulation is this: employers actually want to minimise cost. You maximise profit by either minimising cost or maximising sales. That is how to run a business. So when it comes to health and safety if the employer is given the option of taking a short cut and if they are given the option of not being forced to do something bad employers very often will take that option.I fear that the weasel words that are set out in clause 10—these functions in the bill that is before us now—continue to provide bad employers with the carte blanche that they need to take those short cuts and I believe that they are doing a disservice to those men lying dead in the Pike River mine and to their families and to the submissions that were made by so many New Zealanders including employers unions and workers about health and safety. I believe that we ought as a House to actually ensure that the way that WorkSafe is established in the first place is on a sound basis—on the kind of basis that can and will require employers to comply with their obligations to keep workers safe—and I do not believe that this bill achieves that.My colleague Andrew Little has also spoken about advisory boards—