O'Connor Damien: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 19 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5999. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I know that there are a number of members on the other side of the Chamber who are saying that there are no farmers or farm experience over here but we do indeed have a lot of practical on-farm experience and we have the knowledge to ask of the Minister what this means particularly in the area of agriculture.Can I just go back to a point that my colleague Stuart Nash raised and it is about clause 32. Clause 32(1) states: “… anything arising from the workplace are without risks to the health and safety of any person.” That is a fairly absolute statement. I agree with him and probably with members on the other side of the Chamber who would say that it is almost impossible to eliminate risk. So we have that absolute statement here but if you go back to Part 1—and it is not for me to dwell on Part 1; I know we have debated that—it says in clause 3(1) that “The main purpose of this Act is to provide for a balanced framework …”. In my view that word “balanced” should have been changed to “effective” or “appropriate”. If we have an absolute in Part 2 about eliminating risk then we should not have in Part 1 an implication that we balance that off against other factors like cost or “reasonably practicable” or whatever you want to put in there. I am struggling with this and the Minister might understand why we have this fairly absolute objective in clause 32(1).Actually while we were debating this bill I received a text saying: “God I don’t know how you put up with this.”—going on about these things. People have to understand that every word in the legislation that we pass through this House has a meaning. It has been debated and it is absolutely essential that we get the words right. We can guarantee that down the path there will be some lawyer who for good or bad reason will argue the case in a court of law over a word that we have endorsed or tried to change in the House. So we will carry on here.Can I refer to the farming provisions in here—clause 32(1B). It has been raised before by my colleagues that the provision relating to the person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) who is conducting a farming business or is undertaking duties owed by them of course “(a) applies only in relation to the farm buildings and any structure or part of the farm immediately surrounding the farm buildings that are necessary for the operation of the business or undertaking:”. It continues to say that that does not apply in relation to the main dwelling or “any other part of the farm unless work is being carried out in that part at the time.”There are many farms that will have stockyards out in the far reaches of the farm and they may have been constructed well or they may not have been. The Minister may be able to clarify this. I am assuming that this provision means that if you are not working in the stockyards no one is responsible for any danger that may be caused by the design of them or by stock that may be held in thererunning around. It is a point that does need to be clarified because it seems as though the onus of responsibility shifts just with the people as they move around the farm rather than saying that the PCBU is responsible for the wider safety of the whole of the farming operation. The Minister may be able to explain that.I go on to another part of Part 2 that has been raised before. It refers to penalties I guess for non-disclosure. Anyone in business today who does not understand the implications of notifying accidents and of what that might mean for your ACC rating or for a lot of other things around your business would be naive. It is very very important to notify but it is also a reality that if you notify every accident in your business then your ACC rating and a lot of other things may change and it may affect your business. So while encouraging people to notify—and in fact the bill expects all notifications to take place—one of the questions I ask is: are the penalties sufficient? Are the penalties in line with other provisions across the legislation?