Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20054] 
11.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What will the Government do to prevent an influx of court cases as a result of the new stress provisions in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 as feared by Phil O’Reilly Chief Executive of Business New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It is important for the House to note that there has been only one prosecution of this type to date. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of New Zealand employers want safe and healthy workplaces. In this case there had been numerous complaints and the matter had on many occasions been brought to the employer’s attention. The problem was that the employer had failed to act on those complaints. There is nothing to suggest that there will be a large number of such cases in the future. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does the Government justify the union representation in the occupational safety and health legislation and the ability of unions to bring private prosecutions or is this just another example of amendments to industrial law that in the words of John Tamihere the Government “f’ed up”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is internationally regarded as best practice to have worker participation in health and safety issues. I would prefer to rely on that sort of evidence rather than on the information the member seems to be relying on. No wonder he is so hopeless about health and safety issues! 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What does the Department of Labour do to assist employers in providing safe and healthy workplaces? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In specific relation to the stress issue raised in the primary question immediately after the clarification was made in the amendment to the Act comprehensive guidelines were published by the Department of Labour including helpful information for employers to ensure that they would avoid the very situation that Nalder and Biddle recently became party to. In the meantime the Occupational Safety and Health Service has received a number of queries from both employers and employees and the fact that there has been only one prosecution to date indicates that that information has been sought and used. 
Stephen Franks 
: What moral authority has the Government to sick on the lawyers for dud employees claiming stress when that Government has desperately pressed an honest whistle-blower to resign without due process and has pressed him to agree that he is affected by stress and to take 2 weeks’ unsought stress break on full leave when he is tormented by shared responsibility for running the “biggest sweatshops” in the nation and when he has blown the whistle on a working climate that is “If you’re a free and independent spirit very dangerous.”; what has the Minister done to protect him from having to toady to union bosses who are “always about threats and intimidation and ‘we’ve got big balls what have you got?’ ” 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think it is important and should be well supported by colleagues within the workplace that every employer ensure that when any person in any job is showing signs of stress that person be supported to relieve him or her of that stress. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does an employee who is ordered by his or her boss to take stress leave nevertheless seem to have enough time to appear on television programmes and to negotiate talkback shows whilst on that leave; or is being told to stay away from work simply a way of keeping the employee out of the Government’s hair? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I guess that various people respond to stress in different ways and respond to relieving stress in different ways. Time will tell which is the more successful.