Mitchell Clayton: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 19 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5977. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I do appreciate the call yet again in this marathon debate that we are having. I do also acknowledge and very much appreciate the words of the honourable Minister because it is great that we have got this engagement this opportunity. I hear his discussion with regard to clause 28 not levying workers. I really would like you to reconsider that Minister. Let me just give you two examples of how this modification in clause 28 will have a positive impact on businesses around the country.When I was around talking to the meat workers we had a chance to have a serious conversation with regard to senior management and the new definition of a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) as they would be under this new legislation. They employ some 300-odd workers in this place yet they find that at least 30 percent—30 percent—of their workers on a daily basis come in because they have left their safety goggles at home: “Oh goodness me! I’ve left them at home.” So they get handed another pair. They say: “Oh goodness me! I’ve left my hard hat at home and my high-vis jacket.” So they give them another one. They have got stocks and stocks and stocks of this stuff because they go out like cannon fodder to their employees.The point is that the employer is not going to send the worker home and say “Sorry you can’t work today until you go and get your other one back.” because of course that is going to slow down production. So they hand them over another pair of glasses at $15. If there was a levy that could be placed on that worker to say “Look I’m going to give you that. I’m going to take you down for $15 for a pair of safety goggles. Make sure you bring them back tomorrow or replace your other ones.”—that is the sort of simple practicality that this legislation will allow.You talked about not being able to levy these workers or charge them but consider a different scenario a not-so-practical scenario where we have got a workplace where there is a tree-felling gang going around and clear felling a section. If the lumberjack forgets his chaps and his hard hat and safety goggles there is clearly not a resource or a four-wheel drive that hosts all the gear that they need. They simply cannot go to work that day. So what we are saying is that it is not a matter of the worker not being able to work; in a situation like that they cannot come to work. It is unsafe and no worker—or no employee or employer PCBU or worker—will allow themselves to get themselves into a situation where that would happen.So practically we are just simply saying that in the event of staff members showing up regularly—ridiculously—without their personal protective equipment we as employers should be able to sensibly say: “I’m going to charge you for that and bring it back in tomorrow.” Any employer where you have got a staff uniform required that might not be personal protective equipment you would surely say to that staff member: “You haven’t got your shirt on today. Here’s another one. Either bring it back washed and cleaned and ready tomorrow or we’re going to charge you for your staff uniform.” It is the same thing and any worker and any employer has the ability to do that with a uniform yet this is part of a uniform and you are unable to do it.I think the Government is missing the point. It is a simple common-sense practical solution to a problem that has just been transferred into something else and we would love to see the Government support that because it would make a huge difference to the businesses that are forking out millions of dollars on personal protective equipment with absolutely no recourse for staff because there is no comeback on it.I would also like to bring your attention to your response—and I acknowledge that; I think it is fantastic—around not being able to put insurance against fines or for anything unlawful. Insuring yourself I think is quite important. One of the things that this bill may have an effect on an unintended consequence if you will is around people seconding themselves to boards. In a council-controlled organisation where you have got councillors who are obviously protected under this legislation from having any legality of onerous—as soon as they get seconded on to a council-controlled organisation they all of a sudden become legally culpable for any mishaps in that workplace. Let us be honest. Some of these council-controlled organisations that are around the country operating in Auckland Tauranga Rotorua and Wellington even are quite large and quite onerous. You are going to have a push back from the communities of people who want to take on that responsibility because there are going to be some very far-reaching obligations for them legally morally and so on. The ability for that person on the board to not be able to insure themselves I find a little bit absurd. Just to finish off on this clause which covers off a lot of what I have got to say too—