Nash Stuart: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:6062. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to talk about subpart 4 of Part 3 which is clause 92 to 104. This is about provisional improvement notices. Clause 92(1) says: “This section applies if a health and safety representative reasonably believes that a person is contravening or is likely to contravene a provision of this Act or regulations.”There are a couple of questions here. I do not quite understand why the wording is the way it is—why there are some “mays” there instead of “musts”. To me a “must” is a direct order whereas a “may” is open to wiggle room.Let me give you an example here. Clause 92(2) says: “The health and safety representative may issue a provisional improvement notice requiring the person to—(a) remedy the contravention; or (b) prevent a likely contravention from occurring;” I do not know why that does not say that the health and safety representative “must” issue a provisional improvement notice to remedy the contravention or prevent a likely contravention from occurring because if the health and safety representative sees something that is likely to cause harm or that puts workers at risk I would have thought that they should be under a statutory obligation to issue a provisional improvement notice.What it does say here if I go to clause 92(3) is: “However the health and safety representative must not issue a provisional improvement notice to a person unless he or she has first consulted the person.” I am assuming that the reason that the consultation process is in place is natural justice. You need to ask the person: “What is going on here? Is there a genuine reason for the activity you are participating in?”. What I am very very clear about is that this must not be seen as punitive but rather as consultative. For example we do not want the health and safety representative who is under statutory obligation to consult with a person to have that person almost threatened or have that person feel as if they have done something absolutely wrong are in fear of losing their job or are under any threat of punitive action. So it must be seen in a consultative positive light as opposed to a punitive light.Then we move down to clause 93. This talks about training requirements. What it actually says here is that the health and safety representative is not allowed to issue a provisional improvement notice unless they have completed the training prescribed under the regulations. What I would have liked to see here is a clause that says that an employer must reasonably find adequate time for the health and safety representative to undertake the required training necessary to implement the regulations. Again what I am slightly concerned about is that the health and safety representative is a position of responsibility. It does say in the legislation that that person needs the required training in order to be able to issue these notices but what we must have and what I believe must happen is that in order for that health and safety representative to do a good job then they have to be given a reasonable amount time off work—i.e. not at their own expense but at an employer’s expense—in order to undertake the level of training required to allow them to meet their statutory requirements. Because what I can see happening here as an unintended consequence is that a person becomes the health and safety rep but in order to complete their requirements then—