Heatley Phil: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6662] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Members will know that the National Party is supporting this bill. This was not our position at the beginning when the Government first introduced the legislation to the House. That was because we as a team were somewhat disappointed to be hounded up and down the country in our electorate offices—from as far north as Kerikeri in John Carter’s electorate to as far south as Bill English’s electorate of Clutha-Southland—by plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers who were concerned that they had been incorporated into the legislation that Harry Duynhoven had introduced without any consultation whatsoever regarding the technicalities and specifics of their industry. They were absolutely appalled at this. The first they had heard of changes to their industry—changes to the standards they practised under changes to the framework they trained under as tradespeople; all those issues addressed in this bill—was when the legislation hit the Table in this House. 
So National opposed the first reading because of insufficient consultation with plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers because of the appropriation of standards setting—we felt it was inappropriate at that time—and because of a lack of assessment of additional costs and the impact on the availability of skilled tradespeople. Believe it or not the original legislation included gasfitters drainlayers and plumbers—they have been set aside from the bill we are considering tonight—as well as those working in the electricity industry. The standards were so absurd in terms of training and professional development that they baulked at it knowing first of all the waste of their time that would ensue and also the costs that would be rammed home to them. Fortunately changes were made. The initial bill removed the registration of plumbers electricians and other trades and at the time National argued the importance of keeping registration and we were fortunate to have the bill changed at that point so that we could keep the registration of those tradespeople. It was a major win for all those involved. 
It was one of the rare occasions when people came to constituency offices of members of Parliament—from John Carter in the north through to Bill English in the south—put an issue on the table and the National MPs came to Wellington and brought about a change. In this case people came back to us and thanked us personally for the work we did. Occasionally Harry Duynhoven does work in his electorate office too and he will find that it is not often that people come back to thank their members of Parliament for the work they have done. But I can say that plumbers drainlayers electricians gasfitters and all those involved in the trades included in the original legislation made the effort to come back to National members of Parliament to thank us very much for the changes we had brought about to say that they were generally happy with the legislation before us now and looked forward to our speeches in the House and to ask us to please support this legislation. Of course the National Party does support this legislation. 
That brings us to Part 1 which we are discussing this evening. I would like to spend some time on the definitions within Part 1 and my colleague from the West Coast Chris Auchinvole will deal with other issues of substance further on in Part 1. 
First of all are issues to do with the term “serious harm”. I note that the Commerce Committee members thought it prudent not to put the definition of “serious harm” in subsidiary regulation. Instead they decided to strike that out and to put the definition of “serious harm” occurring in the energy sector—harm to perhaps electricians or others affected in the course of their work—into the primary legislation. 
The legislation states that “serious harm” includes death. It will come as a surprise to members that the select committee decided that death falls into the category of “serious harm”! It is no surprise to me. Of course illness or injury that results in someone “receiving medical treatment from a health practitioner who is or is deemed to be registered” with an appropriate authority constitutes serious harm. It is also an “injury that necessitates the person suffering the injury—(i) being admitted to hospital;”. Harry Duynhoven the Minister in charge of the bill in his wisdom had decided that “serious harm” would also be defined as death. So if someone died serious harm had happened to that person. We in the National Party support that. I do not think we had to take that to our caucus. We agree that that would be the case. That is one definition that needed to be changed and I think it was wise to bring that into the legislation rather than put it into regulation to make it clear that “serious harm” is indeed significant harm. 
Secondly there is the issue of applicable minimum standards for licensing. This means the minimum standard for the class of licence in question and that comes under new Part 10 in clause 12. The National Party argued quite strongly on behalf of tradespeople that the licensing regime that Harry Duynhoven had dreamt about would not be the best way forward. Gasfitters plumbers drainlayers and those in the electricity sector whom this bill addresses wanted to retain registration. Registration as a builder a plumber or a gasfitter is widely understood amongst the public as having some significance. The Associate Minister wanted to introduce licensing and there was some confusion even amongst those in the trades as to what that would mean and how it was different from registration. Registration is very much part of society and there is understanding of it. There are registered nurses registered medical practitioners and now registered engineers because of the work of our predecessors in this Parliament. People understand what registration means. So issues in the definitions to do with licensing were struck out. That shows the shift back to registration which the National Party fought for and we certainly support the select committee pushing that through. 
Part 1 also addresses accidents and the danger that can occur in the energy sector when tradespeople do their job incorrectly or without the knowledge or skills required. There was some concern originally that this bill should focus substantially on safety—hence its title. Issues in clause 8 relate to the notification and investigation of accidents: how that is to be carried forward how information regarding an accident that has occurred is recognised and catalogued and obviously downstream what can be learnt from that accident so that it does not happen again. There are also issues about how we deal with a situation where work that an electrician has done causes a danger to someone. The danger may be to the electrician himself or herself or an unsafe environment may be created that is a danger to all those involved whether they are working as electricians or are members of the general public. Those issues are also addressed in the bill. 
Clause 12 deals with restrictions on electrical work. Section 74 is headed “Restrictions on doing or assisting with prescribed electrical work”. The original section 74 that the Associate Minister introduced stated: “(1) A person must not do any prescribed electrical work or assist in doing any prescribed electrical work unless that person—(a) is authorised to do so under a licence …; and (b) does so within the limits prescribed by regulations.” Again that has changed.