Woodhouse Michael: Health and Safety Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Health and Safety Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 30 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5520. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That the Health and Safety Reform Bill be now read a second time. This bill represents the biggest reform in health and safety in more than 20 years. It is central to the Government’s ongoing commitment to improving New Zealander’s health and safety at work. It provides a balanced framework for health and safety in the workplace that better reflects modern working arrangements. It amends other Acts to ensure New Zealand has a consistent and robust health and safety regulatory system. It drives better health and safety outcomes which will benefit business efficiency and productivity.I want to thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its hard work and consideration of the bill. Indeed I need to thank two select committees as consideration of the bill spanned the 2014 general election. The current chair Jonathan Young wisely sought to rehear submissions to ensure that his committee was well versed in the issues. I thank him for his calm and effective leadership and I thank all parliamentary colleagues who worked on the bill. Thanks go also to those who submitted on the bill. The select committee has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments which I fully support.Since assuming responsibility for health and safety reform I have read and listened to many experts on health and safety both here and in other jurisdictions with which we compare ourselves and which have much better safety records than New Zealand. Their message is consistent and unequivocal: in order to reduce death and injury in the workplace we must focus on the industries and activities with the highest risk. The changes recommended by the committee do just that and I want to briefly outline those changes. But first I should restate to the House an important reason for the changes apart from the obvious need to improve health and safety.Workplaces and even the nature of work have changed. A generation ago when the Health and Safety in Employment Act was passed workplaces generally had a single employer employing all staff. Now in construction health care forestry and so on there are multiple organisations all working together or in close proximity. Under the bill those entities known as persons conducting a business or undertaking or PCBUs must do what is reasonably practicable to keep their workers and others affected by their work safe and healthy. In practice duties can overlap but this does not mean or require duplication of effort.Having to work together to meet health and safety duties is not new but the bill makes it clear that persons conducting a business or undertaking must cooperate in such situations. Attention is focused on what each person conducting a business or undertaking is able to influence and control ensuring they take action that is reasonable and proportionate to the risks. Persons conducting a business or undertaking are best placed to have wide-reaching influence on achieving collaborative efforts towards and in health and safety throughout and between businesses. Collaborative approaches will not only act to improve health and safety but will have high potential to drive improvements in productivity.Separate from the duties of the person conducting a business or undertaking the bill also introduces a duty on officers. Officers must exercise due diligence by taking reasonable steps to ensure their person conducting a business or undertaking complies with their duties and obligations. Unlike the current law officers cannot be made liable for the failure of their person conducting a business or undertaking. Rather officers are liable only where they fail to perform their own due diligence duties. Who an officer is under the bill was considered to be ambiguous. The definition focused not on the person’s role in the organisation but on whether they made substantive decisions about the business. Although those holding specific positions such as company director will always be considered an officer the committee has made changes to make it clear that officers will be only those who have a very senior governance role that allows them to exercise significant influence over the management of the business. This is appropriate. It is those senior leaders who have the real ability to influence the health and safety direction of an organisation and to ensure that the person conducting a business or undertaking proactively manages and addresses health and safety in how they operate their business. I intend to propose a further change to clarify that the extent of an officer’s duty will take into account the nature of their role and the nature of their responsibilities in the business. This will mean that the officer’s role in and degree of influence over the business will be taken into account in what they are expected to do.Submitters considered that the bill’s failure to recognise any distinction between the work of regular volunteers and casual volunteers failed to reflect the reality of volunteering in New Zealand. The committee agreed which is why it has proposed that the coverage of volunteers remains the same as it is under current law. As under current law where any volunteer is undertaking certain voluntary work activities they will not be treated as workers under the bill. This includes participating in fund-raising activities or assisting with sport or recreation for schools or clubs. Community purpose volunteer associations that do not employ anyone will continue to be excluded as persons conducting a business or undertaking under the bill. This ensures that volunteering will not be affected and it recognises the significant contribution volunteers make to our communities.Following the recommendations of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety worker engagement and participation is strengthened under the bill. All persons conducting a business or undertaking must engage with workers on health and safety matters that affect them and must have ongoing practices that allow workers to effectively participate in improving health and safety. That has not changed as a consequence of the committee’s recommendations and I am disappointed that some commentators have misrepresented the changes as having done that with the unnecessary anxiety that this has created.The changes to worker participation balance the needs of workers and businesses. The bill will allow for innovative and flexible practices while simplifying compliance for small businesses in low-risk sectors where more formal approaches may not necessarily result in better health and safety outcomes. To this end the committee has recommended that low-risk businesses or undertakings that have fewer than 20 workers will not be required to have formal health and safety representatives or to have a committee when requested. However let me be clear: all persons conducting a business or undertaking including small businesses will still have a requirement for worker engagement and participation.Small businesses in high-risk sectors will have to have formal health and safety reps if requested. A worker will have the ability to challenge whether the existing practices are effective. Where health and safety representatives are to be elected changes have also been made to simplify some procedural requirements such as determining the group of workers the representative is to be elected by and represent. Current participation systems will be recognised under the new law. Existing health and safety reps will have to undertake additional training to be able to exercise their new powers to issue provisional improvement notices or direct that unsafe work is to cease.Changes have also been recommended by the committee to address concerns that a workplace could be considered a workplace for all time even after work is finished or where the person conducting a business or undertaking does not have active control. The committee agreed that such an interpretation could have a considerable impact on the obligations of persons conducting a business or undertaking who manage or control such workplaces and it has changed the definition of “workplace” to address this. Similarly changes have been made to make it clear that persons conducting a business or undertaking who manage or control workplaces will not owe this duty to those who are in the workplace for unlawful purposes.The duty of persons conducting a business or undertaking who manage or control workplaces has also been amended to recognise the practical dynamics of this duty when it applies to farming situations. In such circumstances it has been made clear that the duty of persons conducting a business or undertaking who manage or control workplaces will extend to the buildings and structures in the surrounding areas. The farm workplace for these purposes will not include other parts of the farm when work is not being carried out there. This provides farmers with greater clarity about their obligations. Many farmers generously provide access to and through their land for recreational activities. This change will provide assurance to everyone to ensure for example that cycleways walking tracks and beach access through farmland is not negatively affected by unclear legislation.I also intend to propose a further change to provide certainty that the family home on a farm is excluded from the duty to manage or control the workplace. The changes recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee reflect a balanced and careful approach to health and safety. They clarify the scope and application of the bill’s obligations while ensuring that the appropriate level of responsibility for work health and safety is held by everyone. I commend this bill to the House.