Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Speaker. So the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill has been obviously subject to a lot of discussion and debate tonight and I have the pleasure of providing the penultimate call for the National Party—actually it might be the last one that we have tonight. But as others have observed on this side of the House there are various reasons that we can't support what appears to be a well-intended bill. Of course no one could argue with the aim of improving worker safety if indeed that is what the bill were to be able to achieve.But before I go on to note some of those more substantive points I think it is worth noting—as we reflect towards the end of the process—that the Education and Workforce Committee provided a report in which there were a number of amendments that were made and those were agreed unanimously. So I think that's an indication that even though members of the Parliament who felt unable to support the bill overall did nevertheless wish to agree to amendments that would improve the bill knowing that it would be passed—it's proposed by a Government that has a single party majority. So operating in good faith to improve the final product in so far as they could I think actually reflected well on all those who are involved in that stage of the process. I wasn't personally but I followed the arguments that have been made at various stages of the legislative process and indeed now I have this opportunity to contribute to them.It's worth noting for anyone who's been following the debate and isn't finding it entirely clear what exactly is being done by the bill a very important word in all of this is the word and". So as noted in the commentary as provided by the Education and Workforce Committee the current situation is that "a person conducting a business or undertaking can decline a request from its workers to initiate an election for a health and safety representative if it is not in a designated high-risk sector or industry and has fewer than 20 workers."So even if a business has fewer than 20 workers if it is in what is considered a "high-risk" sector then these higher standards actually apply to it. So it's not the case that a business—either by virtue of being small or by being not dangerous so to speak—will be able to avoid this requirement. But actually it's the combination of those two that would make the difference under the current law. The second—and more obvious—point I suppose to make in that is that we're talking about the election of officers for health and safety and the establishment of committees. It's essentially a bureaucratic even technocratic—albeit democratic—function that this bill is providing. That's not to pour scorn on the importance of democracy or technocracy or even bureaucracy. But these things have their place and a small workplace that is determinedly and consciously classed as not being one that is high-risk it seems that the emphasis is misplaced rather than saying for example what are the substantive measures that we can take to improve health and safety—whether it is by laws that will actually do something positive in that direction beyond the mere election of officers and establishments of committees and so forth.One practical example in that regard would be that found in the National Party differing view within the select committee report whereby our members on that committee had said "Focus would be better placed on ensuring that WorkSafe operates as an effective regulator of the existing laws and regulations." So we would prefer that additional effort focus resources and so forth were concentrated in that area and we think that would have a better chance of achieving tangible positive change than one change that is merely technocratic bureaucratic—albeit as I say democratic.So distinguishing between high-risk and low-risk activities one draws on the wisdom as always of Blackadder. If one compares the situation of Captain Darling versus that of Captain Blackadder and of course Baldrick—Private Baldrick no less or no more—and the lorry load of paperclips that has been ordered on that morning for example by Captain Darling in a particularly exciting move not on the front line but in the immortal words of General Melchett: "We are behind you Captain Blackadder." you know some way behind you etc.Anyway I'm not going to do it as well as some of those characters have. Similarly my contribution is probably not as good as others. But nevertheless we do oppose the bill for the reasons that I've said."