Beaumont Carol: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14590. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise in the Committee stage of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I want to pick up from where my colleague Andrew Little has just left off in looking at Part 1. I will consider clauses 7 8 and 9 in this contribution.The establishment of a new workplace health and safety agency WorkSafe New Zealand is something that is vital and it would be fantastic if we could agree and make changes to get something set up that is going to be world class and that is going to make a real difference. We know and we have seen firsthand in this country in recent times just how wrong things can go at work. The fact is that we want—and I am sure that is across this House—to see that we are as safe as we can be in our workplaces and that people go to work that they do their job to the best of their ability and that they come home safely. The establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand is part of that. We believe that at the moment unfortunately there is a missed opportunity to create that world-class health and safety regime.The first reason for that is looking at clause 7 around WorkSafe New Zealand’s board. That clause provides first of all for the Minister to appoint “at least 5 but not more than 9 persons as members of the board.” When the Minister does that appointing of a member to the board—and there is a question about how genuine that process will be and we can only assume that we will have Ministers taking very seriously that role of getting the best people to do the work—they are required under this legislation to ensure that the board “has among its members persons who have collectively knowledge and experience of and capability in the following:” and then it lists a number of things.We do not think that the notion of “perspectives of workers” in paragraph (d) of clause 7(2) and of “perspectives of employers” in paragraph (da) actually goes far enough in seeking and setting up what we really need which is a tripartite board where there is genuinely equal representation and where there are leaders from the business community from relevant Government agencies and from unions the representatives of employees. Those people all need to have the ability to argue create and determine on that board—as equally valid representatives if you like—the outcomes that we need. There is plenty of evidence to show now that diverse boards—and that is not just in this area but in business generally and in community organisations—do better. Where there is not a mind-set of one group over another and where there is a range and a contest of ideas you get better outcomes. That is the real strength of having a genuinely tripartite board. It can take account of different views and different expertise members can challenge each other’s ideas and it can make better decisions because of that.So I too as Andrew Little has done would urge the Minister to rethink this provision and to make sure that we do not have these strange words about “perspectives of” and that we actually have genuine representatives of employers workers Government agencies and public sector experts. It is really important that we get that right because that is the leadership. That is the group that will determine a lot of other things.Interestingly enough in clause 8 which talks about the advisory groups it says that “WorkSafe New Zealand may establish an advisory group” and then talks about “a forum for dialogue and co-operation between the Government employers and workers on workplace health and safety matters;”. To me that sounds like a tripartite kind of group and it seems strange to me that the board—if you like the head of the organisation—does not equally have that kind of structure. I do not understand the logic of that. So I think that it is important to think about the relationship between the WorkSafe New Zealand board and the potential advisory groups that WorkSafe New Zealand can establish.The main objective of WorkSafe New Zealand which is set out in clause 9 is I think quite a strong statement actually. Clause 9 states: “WorkSafe New Zealand’s main objective is to promote and contribute to securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” I think that that is quite a strong statement.