Scott Alastair: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 19 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5991. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): This afternoon is the first time that I have had a chance to speak on this bill. I would like to acknowledge the work and the common cause that the Committee has which is of course to make sure that Kiwis come home safe from work. It is important to recognise that work because we all have that same goal. I would also like to recognise and acknowledge the people who have been here in the gallery today and yesterday. We kill too many people in New Zealand. There are people here today who are left behind from the Pike River disaster—29 men were lost. We have to remember those who are affected not just by deaths but also by long-term injuries and this bill goes a long way towards helping to do that.Attitude was talked about earlier by a number of parties. This bill is not going to change attitudes. This is the framework on which we can hang our legislation. Changes in attitudes and culture have already begun. I think the Minister mentioned earlier that the forestry sector has already made large changes towards changing their attitudes and culture. In the marine industry maritime operating safety regulations have been in place for 1 year already and it is consulting again and is getting feedback. So again that is an example of an industry that is taking the lead in health and safety in its work environment. Of the other examples of industries that I was involved with prior to coming into Parliament whether large or small health and safety was up there at the top of the agenda so this is nothing new. This is no new approach to health and safety; it is already out there and this is creating a strong framework and leadership from a legislative point of view.Common sense has been discussedalready. A reasonable practical nature determines or defines what common sense should be—reasonable and practical. This part is about common shared responsibility—that is the duties that each of the persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) or workers are involved in. I would like to highlight Supplementary Order Paper 108 and proposed new clause 29A(2) which helps to clarify that people are all responsible for each other’s health and safety. But this new clause clarifies the extent to which a person has or would reasonably be expected to have the ability to influence. So I think that that addresses some of the concerns that Mr Robertson talked about in the first part—that it is where one has the influence when one is a director of a company. For example they are not going to be able to influence what is directly happening on the dayon the shop floor—whether a guy is wearing his steel-cap boots or not. He cannot be held responsible for that assuming that all of the other responsibilities that he has as a director have been fulfilled. Similarly the worker next to the guy on the workshop floor who is not wearing his steel-cap boots has a responsibility and an obligation to perform his duty of care and that primary duty of care for the worker is in Part 2.The other part of Part 2 that I would like to highlight relates to the PCBU and to farm workers. I have had a lot of questions from farmers and farm workers about what their duties are as far as buildings are concerned when they have accommodation on the farm. It is clear that the farm buildings are certainly the responsibility of the PCBU—that is when work is taking place—but the main dwelling of the house on the farm is not part of the farm infrastructure; it is outside the workplace. The only other part of a farm that would be inside the workplace is accommodation made available to a worker only when it is difficult for that worker to seek accommodation elsewhere. So imagine perhaps a Department of Conservation worker who is out in one of the Department of Conservation estates or a farmer who is out in the middle of nowhere. That accommodation would be considered part of the workplace infrastructure.