Woodhouse Michael: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 19 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5957. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is my privilege to commence the Committee stage on the Health and Safety Reform Bill. I want to begin by making some introductory comments including some comments on matters that are actually in the latter part of the bill. I trust that the Chair will indulge me a little because I think that they give important context to this and I intend at the end of this intervention to table a document that will assist members in the debate on Part 3.I think that it will provide context to what I expect will be a robust and I hope reasoned and respectful Committee stage.I want to begin by acknowledging the family and friends of loved ones who have been killed or seriously injured at work including those who are present and those who are watching this bill’s progress on TV or radio disappointed that this stage did not commence yesterday. I regret that that was not the case but I want to assure the Committee that it was not due to any deliberate attempt on my part to delay. Indeed it was my strong preference to commence this stage yesterday but it is important that we get this bill absolutely right and in good shape and that all parties are satisfied before they support it.I have spoken to and corresponded with a great many people who have had loved ones killed or injured at work and I simply cannot imagine the disbelief the grief and the anger that one must feel. Through that contact one message was consistent—that is they implored us through that grief to do what we could to ensure that no one else has that experience. The Government has made a commitment to do its part and I believe that that commitment is being delivered on not just with this bill but also with the plethora of other actions that the Government has taken over the past 3 or 4 years—particularly since the Pike River mine disaster—in setting up the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy in establishing the High Hazards Unit the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety and the new underground mining regulationsin setting up WorkSafe New Zealand in providing significant extra investment in new resources for health and safety inspectors the health and safety charter in Christchurch to support the Canterbury rebuild and in a plethora of other things.I think that the forestry industry is a really good example of industry-led change. My predecessor Simon Bridges was very disquieted by whatwere I think 10 deaths at work in the forests in 2013. I think that the Independent Forestry Safety Review has after a slow start been enthusiastically embraced by the forestry industry. The Forestry Industry Safety Council has now been established and the results are clear. There were 10 deaths in 2013. We know one death is one too many but there has been only one in the 21 months since. I think that is consistent with a general trend toward reducing death and injury. The Construction Sector Action Plan 2010-2013 was established 2 years ago and the health and safety charter in Christchurch has led to a near-halving of serious injuries in that sector but there is more to do if we are to finish that job and deliver on the commitment tohave a New Zealand workplace that is increasingly free of death and injury. This bill is an important part of that process.Part 1 in the meanings clauses sets out the definition of a “person conducting a business or undertaking” or a PCBU. The bill increases penalties for non-compliance. It makes it absolutely clear that all participants in the workplace—managers owners directors workers—have a duty to keep themselves and others safe at work. Worker participation is absolutely an underpinning part of this legislation but there are many others.Apart from the obvious goal of increasing safety this bill actually reflects the fact that in the 22 or so years since the Health and Safety in Employment Act was passed the workplace has changed. The way in which work is delivered—the combinations of contractors self-employed and employees—has changed. In the sector that I knew well before coming to Parliament as the chief executive officer of a surgical hospital 25 years ago a hospital would do everything. It would employ the surgeons the nurses the allied health professionals the cleaners the cooks the laundry workers and the maintenance staff. Now there could be as many as 60 or 70 separate entities working in a hospital and the challenge is to make sure that everybody in that workplace understands what good health and safety means and that requires a degree of cooperation and understanding about the risks and how to mitigate them.There was very strong support for the bill at its introduction and then came the amendments to worker participation. I want to refer to a document that I will be tabling at the end of this and that goes to the commitment that I made at the second reading to define the framework that the Government will use in order to consult on what the regulation should be for high-risk small business. It was my hope that we would get to about the upper quartile of risk. We have found a consistent taxonomy and description in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification codes which are used by ACC to set ACC levies and we have looked at the injury rates over the past 5 years—from 2009 to 2013 I think it was—and we have included in this draft list for consultation any industry that has had a fatality rate greater than 25 per 100000 workers. Any industry with a serious injury rate above 25 per 1000 workershas been included and we have acknowledged that although the actual rate may not be that high there is the risk of a mass-casualty event in some industries. I should also add that there is the issue of occupational exposure the best example of which is exposure to asbestos and silica dust in the construction industry and for that reason although the construction industry does not meet the fatality and serious injury thresholds it will be included in this list for consultation.I have tried to be as thorough as possible but I have taken one industry out—which the press gallery may be interested to know—and that is television presentation. I was not sure why that had such a high fatality rate but then the answer was pretty obvious actually that the deaths were those of workers in the CTV Building. So for that catastrophic event which I do not think is indicative of the industry but more of the situation that industry is the one industry that we have excluded from this list for consultation.I will get to the rights and wrongs of that in the robust discussion on Part 3 I have no doubt but I want to remind the Committee that this is the last reform of our health and safety framework not of our health and safety representatives. This is about everybody participating in health and safety. In a way what we have through this list is that 75 percent of our labour force will have the right to a health and safety representative if that is asked for. The other quarter of the workforce may well do and I expect that small businesseswill say yes to it regardless of whether they are compelled to do so because either they have them or it suits them. Not having a health and safety representative may actually be the harder path for some small businesses. It certainly does not let them off the hook. I can imagine that for small businesses particularly those with workers that are disparate in the workplace—take a farm or a plumbing firm where they are driving around and working at remote places—the way actually to ensure that knowledge is shared and that skills in health and safety are high is to have a different model. This reflects that modern workplace.Labour says that it is the friend of small business. Apparently it has suddenly had an epiphany about the 90-day rule although I am not sure about that. This one opportunity to reflect the modern workplace and the modern small business with a flexible—but not watered-down expectation in my view because all the powers of the health and safety representative are still available to every worker in the workplace; the path is just a different one—warrants I think robust debate here. I stand strong in my view that this is a sensible balanced and appropriate response to the modern workplace in New Zealand. It is by no means a watering-down.I am going to require a third call perhaps Mr Chair because I want to acknowledge our support partners—ACT for its support and scrutiny and Peter Dunne and the United Future Party—for working with us to make sure that the framework for the establishment of high-risk industries was robust evidence-based and consistent and also for making sure there was a review of that. Actually I expect that because it is in secondary legislation and in regulations we will be able to amend it from time to time. But indeed I think there will be a formal review in the regulation.The Māori Party I want to acknowledge Marama Foxparticularly has worked with us very much on the tightening of the expectations around developing solid work groups and avoiding what some would say is—and I do not actually think that there is a high risk of this—the arbitrage to establish work groups that do not deliver the intent of health and safety committees and representatives and on the extension of time for the taking of a private prosecution should the regulator decide not to take one. I want to acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway. He has a Supplementary Order Paper that does the same thing. I think there is merit in this. Indeed we have come to a place that is an extension of time in the bill as it came back from the second reading but it is not as long as Mr Lees-Galloway would have liked.I want to acknowledge the officials. I did not do so in the second reading and one of the reasons was that they wrote the speech so in typical modest fashion they wrote it and I forgot to amend it. I have not worked a group of officials harder than I did with this bill. Those who worked with me on the Veterans’ Support Bill will find that quite hard to believe. They have worked incredibly hard they have been very responsive and they have done so knowing that the product is going to result in a better health and safety environment in this country.I have said this on a number of occasions and I will finish by saying it again. We can pass all the laws rules and regulations we like but what will make the fundamental change and is making the fundamental change towards keeping people healthy and safe at work is a change in behaviour and attitudes. That behoves us all to do this and to work across business across workers and across directors—across everybody—to ensure that we achieve it.I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment providing guidance on high-risk industries and a list of industries that are proposed for inclusion.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Although I am happy to put the leave of course as a Minister you can just table it.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Can I? In that case I table it.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.