edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I think that Jan Logie has posed a series of very good questions that do need a substantive answer to them and I'm delighted to hear that through a process of participatory democracy and what a former employer of mine would have referred to as balanced feedback" she's now more enlightened and more au fait with this piece of legislation.As I said in my first contribution this is actually really important. In a previous life I had the privilege of being chief executive of a charitable organisation the Make-a-Wish Foundation. It was involving literally granting wishes to children and young people who had major health conditions to confront. While that was being done I got to have a very good understanding about the impact of the regulatory regime that revolves around being a registered charity and what that entails.Now in the case of Make-a-Wish it was a longstanding credible—always looking for more support—reasonably well-resourced organisation. It was always obvious to me that in fact for many smaller charitable organisations—and there are literally tens of thousands of them around the country—this regulatory regime and change that is being imposed by this Charities Amendment Bill will have a big impact on their ability to do the good work that the charity was set up for in the first place.I want to go to a matter that I think was raised by my colleague Maureen Pugh who was very involved in the select committee process. It goes back to the purpose the rationale of why this piece of legislation is being debated in the committee of the whole House tonight. What I think my colleague Maureen Pugh was keen to know was whether as the Minister explained in select committee—and I understand this was the quote—the bones of the Act are working well and therefore do not need a major review. And it was the major review that was committed to in the Labour Party manifesto—when many of the submissions from the charities were critical that that first principles review did not take place because the existing Act is deficient.So if the Minister in the chair could give us some insight into the motivation the rationale and the purpose for pursuing this which will create so much change in the sector—not to think for a minute what some of the change to terminology will mean in terms of potential litigation to define judicially the new words that are in this piece of legislation. I really am having difficulty understanding why the Minister is pursuing this to the degree that she is."
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Chair. I actually am referring to a tabled amendment which I will table in a moment if that's all right. It's a new clause 27 so therefore it's going to be inserted after clause 26 and it's entitled the charities that hold a class 3 operator's licence". So the question is to the Minister around the likes of Coastguard Countdown Kids Charitable Trust the national Heart Foundation and potentially others. So the Minister will know in the charities space that because of COVID—actually if I might Mr Chair refer to the tabled amendment in Part 1—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Proposed tabled amendment.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh I can table it right now. Actually if I might very welcome to have it taken through. Look long and short the Minister will know that many charities like Coastguard and the national Heart Foundation have only ever been able to do raffles in person. During COVID they've been able to do that online and the Government rightly responded to that with two pieces of legislation. But the Minister will also know that these exemptions if you will expire in October next year. So charities like the national Heart Foundation Coastguard Countdown Kids will no longer be able to run their charitable raffles online and this is potentially a bit of a problem.Really the question tonight in using this tabled amendment is firstly to the Minister to draw attention to this. These are charities who do great work in our community. They want to be able to continue to fund-raise online using the class 3 operator's licence. There are crossovers into the Gambling Act—I want to acknowledge that—but this is within the charities space. They want to continue to raise funds online. Personally as the shadow Minister of Internal Affairs I think that's a really good idea. This tabled amendment to insert a new clause 27 basically allows these registered charities to continue to operate with a gambling class 3 operator's licence. And it's trying to make sure that post-October 2024 these charities which do amazing work in our community can continue.I suspect by the nature of the tabled amendment partly because I drafted it it will probably be ruled out of scope. I'm just feeling prophetic this evening. But I would like to know from the Minister whether there is work being done by this Government. In fact it would be wonderful with the likes of the Heart Foundation the Coastguard and others if the Minister could confirm to us whether the Government will undertake to ensure that these charities can continue to do their good raffles and so forth online."
Upston LouiseCHARITIES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to Charities Act 2005 (continued)Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Chair. In the first part of this legislation as my colleague the Hon Scott Simpson talked about we're talking about the definition of an officer" in relation to a charitable entity. The very first submission that I've picked up is from Age Concern and I want to give a shout out to my local Age Concern in Taupō because they do extraordinary work. Their first statement is: "Age Concern New Zealand would like to see a first principles review of the Act … A first principles review would include revisiting the definitions of a charity and a charitable purpose. [And] we note the first principles review was deemed out of scope [which] is at odds with the Government's original stated intention of widening the definition of charitable purpose." So when you talk about definitions and the definition of an "officer" I think it is important to the committee to be clear about first and foremost what the definition of a "charitable entity" is because it was absolutely resounding and shouted very loudly by the submitters who came before the Social Services and Community Committee on this bill that that was the bigger issue in terms of their organisations.A secondary issue was then around the definitions and the feedback when we talk about the definition of an "officer"—actually although the bill was meant to make it easier for charitable organisations to do their work the very changes in the definition of an "officer" have made it more difficult and more complex and more confusing. If you think about many of the charities that this bill purports to improve life for then if we just start in Part 1 alone with the definition of "officer" it hasn't done the job. So the question is: in terms of analysis of the unintended consequences of the existing definition of an "officer" what has been considered and what protections are in place for what will now be a more confusing definition of an "officer" than there was before?"
Voting — Correction—Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill
O'Connor GregVOTINGCorrection—Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment BillCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next call I just need to correct a vote from the previous Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. The correct count was 75 for the Ayes 43 for the Noes. Thank you.
O'Connor Greg; Halbert ShananCHARITIES AMENDMENT BILLPart 1 Amendments to Charities Act 2005CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the Charities Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1.SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. We start with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 30 Amendments to Charities Act 2005" and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Penk Chris; Wood MichaelCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's possibly my final question but I can't resist the temptation as the Minister has taken us down—or allowed me to take the committee down the path of democratic mandate and so on.Is the Minister aware that his bill includes the phrase triggering an election" and I wonder if the Minister would consider at this late stage the committee of the whole House stage broadening the definition of "triggering an election"? I almost said "Tigger-ing an election" which would be a Winnie-the-Pooh reference and an entirely different matter even for this bear of little brain. So I'm grateful for the Minister's comments on that.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): If I had that power through this legislation I would be very interested in doing so if for no other reason than seeing how Parmjeet Parmar does in Pakuranga."
Potaka Tama; Wood MichaelTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. Look if I was consulting on Māori land legislation and proposing change then I would consult with Māori land owners and I'm just wanting to know from the Minister whether or not there were any small businesses and if there were how many small businesses were consulted with prior to undertaking the development of this bill.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): To some degree the Labour Party consulted with 5 million people when it put this in its manifesto and campaigned on it at the election. We then engaged in formal consultation with the peak bodies being the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. Of course Business New Zealand do an excellent job as the peak body in representing the views of businesses small and large. They gave their views and then there has been a full select committee process which has received representations from a range of people including small businesses.
Penk Chris; Wood MichaelCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Mr Chair. I wonder if the Minister can speak a bit about the situation of a sole trader which is a business of fewer than 20 persons of course.I suppose that might sound like a question to which the answer is obvious—which is that one person must advise oneself and elect oneself and represent oneself to oneself in these matters. But actually I think there's a very serious and real possibility that if you have a structure whereby you have a sole trader and a number of contractual arrangements that might be in the nature of consultants or contractors who are very close to being in the nature of employees" and "workers" in the way that term is used in this legislation.By the way I acknowledge the way the primary Act's being amended. So I'm not suggesting to the Minister or to this committee that this bill is doing something novel in this space by having a definition of a worker that can work—so to speak—across the concepts of employee self-employee and contractor etc. But I think it's worth asking the question in relation to businesses that have fewer than 20 workers. If the number of workers is very small such that you wouldn't expect representation—for example effectively a one-person business; a sole trader—but who has people who are caught by the intent of the health and safety at work legislation and to whom the person conducting a business or undertaking has responsibilities quite rightly so; they are responsible for a safe workplace and so on notwithstanding the nature of the employment contract or otherwise.Just grateful if the Minister can explain to the House how in that kind of situation he would envisage—relative to the idea that such a small workplace on paper will have these additional obligations?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Under the legislation someone who was a contractor to that small business would in effect be another person conducting a business or undertaking; they would not be a worker for whom the provisions of health and safety representatives' rights applied."
Bayly Andrew; Wood MichaelANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair I take your comments before about repetition. But I would say that I've got a number of questions outstanding which the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety hasn't even attempted to answer. That's a little bit of frustration and that's why I keep asking the question.But I'll approach it from a different way because he may be trying to characterise this as being vexatious and silly but I would imagine these are the type of things that would have been traversed by the Education and Workforce Committee. I wasn't on the select committee but there's no doubt with a majority of Labour members I would have thought that they would have been eagle-eyed over this.But the reason I'm asking these questions is that the Act comes into force on the day after which it receives Royal assent and then it sets out in replacement section 62(2) inserted by clause 4 that if the person conducting a business or undertaking receives requests it must—within the time described within regulations. So we've got some regulations. We know there are regulations coming in. When are the regulations? Presumably the things are like a disbandment of health and safety representative or committee what the arrangements are the process for that and if the Minister doesn't know the answer which I suspect when will those regulations be available? So current employers—we know over 100000 additional businesses are going to be captured by this because it seems that little thought has gone into that issue—how do they plan for it? With Labour going to ram this through in the next probably couple of weeks employers are going to be pretty shortly thereafter facing the prospect of having to try and put these things into place.So maybe another question for the Minister—hopefully we might even get this answer—is: when will the regulations be available so employers who bear the cost of this and also the legislative liability for not doing it properly when will those regulations be available?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): There will not be new regulations. What is referred to here are the existing regulations that are in effect in respect of health and safety representatives. Again I note the point that all this bill is actually doing is saying that the same things apply to workplaces where there are fewer than 20 employees that already apply to every other workplace where there are more than 20 employees. For most of them the structure is already in place.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want further clarification. I don't think that the scenario that I talked about is that unusual. I just need to know if one of the five employees decided that they wanted a health and safety rep could the owner of the business who works alongside them and pays herself wages be appointed as the representative?
Penk Chris; Wood MichaelCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Enjoying the debate. Very interesting and important subject obviously. I'm just curious if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety can talk us through the rationale for the fines that are set out in well what will be new or rather amended section 62 under clause 4 Election of health and safety representatives" which is for an individual a fine up to $5000; for any other person which I presume is a legal person and not an individual—an actual person—a fine of up to $25000. And that relates to the election of health and safety representatives.Similarly and in fact the same amounts in both cases—individuals versus other brackets legal persons—health and safety committees: the establishment of that that must take place in the way that's set out. Is there a particular rationale for those dollar amounts for those fines?And as a related question is there any thought to allowing those to be amended? For example indexed to inflation—hashtag you know rampant inflation cost of living crisis etc. And if there's some sort of rationale that the Minister can give I think that'll be helpful. I mean obviously there's always a tension. If you put something in primary legislation then it has maximum scrutiny versus regulation which can be a stroke of a pen by a Government agency or technically a Minister advising the Governor-General or whatever. But on the other hand if we're going to set this in stone does the Minister envisage that it might be in five or 10 years or some other period in the future that we might need to come to this House—those of us who are still here in five 10 years—and make a change merely to update the penalty to make that more suitable for the times in which we are then living?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The penalties that the member Chris Penk describes are simply the penalties that are in the existing Health and Safety at Work Act bearing in mind that all that this bill is doing is effectively applying the same provisions across the Health and Safety at Work Act in respect of health and safety representatives to workplaces with fewer than 20 employees as currently apply to those with more than 20 employees."
Potaka Tama; Wood MichaelTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. In light of the wording of the legislation does the health and safety representative have to be a worker of the organisation involved?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes.
Bayly Andrew; O'Connor GregANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Can I go back to my two questions because heaven forbid it's like drawing blood out of a stone tonight! Who determines the number of health and safety representatives and is there any correlation to the number of employees—I'm just trying to repeat the same question—and who decides it is it an absolute majority is it a majority is it the one person whatever? And the same question for the health and safety committee. Hopefully the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety can turn to his officials over there because hopefully they might know the answer.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Bayly could I just state at this stage that giving yourself up to repetition is probably one of the reasons why I'll be looking at perhaps some closures. So you've coughed up actually the same question a few times. I'm not closing the debate now but just be aware we are getting quite repetitive at the moment.
Bayly Andrew; Baillie Chris; Wood MichaelANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): So can a person conducting a business or undertaking decide to disband either the representative role or the committee role or what is the process? Does it require all the workers of the business some of the workers of the business or heaven forbid the majority of the workers? Can you just answer that question Minister?CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I just would wonder if the Minister would really think hard about my question before about those people who own their business but pay themselves wages and work alongside other employees because that scenario is really common and we're going to face it a lot.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Again this is a situation where I think members are trying to find enormously unlikely examples to try and discredit a bill where it is highly unlikely this will occur. I suppose it is the case that if an employer who is working in the workplace in an onanistic fit of health and safety fervour decided that he wanted to be a representative to himself then he might determine to do that. But it strikes me as something that no sane person would do.
Bayly Andrew; Wood MichaelANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK I'll go back to the other question I've asked and we'll do this in twos. Who determines the number of health and safety representatives and is it any correlation to the number of employees in the business? That's under section 62. I'll ask that question first. Let's see if we get an answer on that.All right I'll ask the second question. Under new section 66 inserted by clause 5 who determines how many people go on the health and safety committee? Is it the person conducting a business or undertaking? Is it the workers who nominate themselves or who they want at formation? Or is it all the employees of the business?So same question but two examples. Let's see if we can get those answers. [Interruption]. He doesn't like it—very good.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Andrew Bayly.ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you Mr Chair. Tell me turning the logic upside down once one person in one business decides let's say it's a he he wants to have a health and safety representative—Hon Member: Could be a she.ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah could be a she of course—and that gets established because under these absurd rules using the Minister's words and that said person then leaves the business does the health and safety requirement remain?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Most of these things will be worked out by sensible people in businesses who work together. The members who make so much of the fact that people should be able to work together in a reasonable way somehow make out the case that because there was a health and safety representative in place workers in this workplace are going to go crazy.That is not what is going to happen. Employers and workers will work together to come to sensible arrangements around these matters. If the person who is a health and safety representative—the same thing would happen in that workplace of say 18 people as happens in a workplace currently under the legislation where there are 22 people and there's a health and safety representative in place. Nothing different will happen. There will be a new process to determine who that representative is.
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Well I have responded to the member's question a couple of times and the response is that workers are well placed to judge the risks that they face because they are the ones who are exposed to those risks in the workplace. If it is their view that it is appropriate and it is helpful and it might reduce risk for there to be a health and safety representative in place then our Government through this bill believes it's appropriate that they are able to request that that happens. It would be possible to set an arbitrary threshold in the way that the previous Government did in its legislation but our Government does not believe that that's appropriate.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah I think we really are going to have to do this by the numbers tonight. So hopefully Minister we will return to the 2018 issue of why the Government did not meet its legal responsibility in terms of the review of the health and safety Act. For the second one which was the argument around majority the Minister's response said that there were no such examples even with companies employing more than 20. I understand that but there's lots of options and the Minister hasn't provided any logic chain—to use that same word I used before—as to why it is one because normally in a lot of companies' situations you might have a rule like a certain number or 10 percent of employees or you might have a threshold or a majority or you might have a whole range for it. There are many options but for some reason the Minister has decided that there's one person who decides he or she wants to have it and even if no one else in the business wants to do it that one person gets their way. That means obviously—as the Hon Michael Woodhouse referred to—that there are the costs of all that. So it raises another issue: why wasn't the option if there are situations where you have a small number of employees who felt very vulnerable that they could have the right to proper health and safety training as an option to try and deal with this? What were the other permutations? What I don't understand is any of the logic to get to where we are and I'm looking forward to hopefully getting some response from the Minister that's meaningful.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Minister I just want to come back to a point I made earlier on. The owner of the business: if they work in the business like their employees and if they pay themselves wages—which is the example that I gave you—are you telling me that they are not eligible to be the health and safety rep?
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): That answer could qualify as the single silliest answer I've heard in the committee of the whole House for quite some time. I think I heard the Minister say that the questions that I was asking around the review were somewhat outside the scope of this debate. Actually Minister this is central to the debate and to the reason we're passing this bill. I think I've read somewhere—and the Minister can confirm this for me; it might have been in the regulatory impact statement or one of the advices to the select committee that no they didn't do—well they didn't say whether or not they've done the review but they said that the review was redundant because we're going to get rid of it anyway. Now that is a terrible logic. Had they undertaken that review the very case for this bill could have been established. What I reckon is that what's much more likely is that had they undertaken that review they would have found that the system was working perfectly adequately and that there was no difference material or otherwise to the injury or disease rates for small low-risk businesses that did not have a health and safety rep or committee. If that had been found his lofty rhetoric would have been ruled redundant and that's why they didn't want to do the review because they were absolutely hell-bent on getting rid of this provision and imposing more cost and more administration on small businesses—small businesses I might add Minister where the person conducting a business or undertaking in an overwhelming proportion of them works side by side with the workers. It's not as if the employer needs a health and safety rep to help him or her identify where the risks are. On the farm in the cafe and in the small retail organisation they know exactly where the risks are because they're side by side with the workers and they are as at risk but they're also obliged to ensure that every worker participates. So for the Minister to say that the questions about the review are outside the scope of the bill is utterly ridiculous. I ask—maybe for the last time—where's the case?
Bayly Andrew; Wood MichaelANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well the first question—the obvious question—is why did the Government break the law because the Act required a review in 2018? I'd love to hear the Minister's formal proper answer to that. Secondly going back the Minister keeps saying that he's answered the question. Well actually he hasn't. So maybe we'll just do it in numbers. The first question—I've now asked for the third time—is about the issue around majority. Why did the Minister not move to a situation where a majority of the employees wanted to form one of these committees or to be a representative? And secondly even in the event under section 62 in clause 4 that you have an election of health and safety representatives who determines the number of health and safety representatives? Then I'll come back because we'll do this slowly to try and get the answers we might need.Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I think it is a bizarre suggestion that having a health and safety representative should be some sort of a popularity contest in terms of whether there is a need or not. That is not the procedure which applies to workplaces of over 20 and I'm not sure why it should be the procedure that applies to workplaces under 20.
Woodhouse Michael; Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Well the Minister ended up asking us questions which was: what was the rationale for doing it in the first place? Well as the Minister at that time I'm very happy to answer him and even happier to swap seats if the Minister wishes—although I think we'd have to wait another five or six months before that happens.But when I was sitting in the seat that he was in explaining to a vociferous Opposition in the form of the Labour Party and the Greens the answer was quite simple. It's because the cost of investing in that for a small business was not exceeded by the benefits in reduced injury and disease—particularly when there was a legal obligation on the person conducting a business or undertaking to have an active participation of all employees in health and safety matters.So if they opposed that then the corollary must be that they turn that question around and tell us what information they have to demonstrate that that was wrong; that the benefits of doing this will exceed the costs. One of the dearths of information in the regulatory impact statement and the department report is that there isn't any analysis of that that I can find.I've asked the Minister tonight if it's been done and there's not been an answer to that. So I'll come at it from a different angle as well Minister. The law as it currently stands required a review of the definition of high-risk sectors and industries in 2018 and then five years thereafter. So by now we should have had one completed review of what was considered high risk" and we'd have been probably halfway through another.Now what that review was required to do was exactly what I'm asking. Had the Government bothered to follow the law it would have answered the question and maybe it would have been able to identify whether the risk profile had changed; whether there was a correlation between that risk profile and injury and disease rates. So my question to the Minister is: was that review undertaken? If so what were the findings of that review—because that could answer my questions—and if it wasn't undertaken why not?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I'm advised that there was not a review undertaken in 2018.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In respect of 2023 the Government's response to that issue—well it's actually outside of the debate that we're having in this committee Mr Woodhouse. In respect of this bill the way that we are responding to that issue is to remove the need the high-risk classification."
Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I have already addressed the question about the Government's fundamental rationale for this bill but I'll come at it a different way by saying that the Health and Safety at Work Act by dint of the fact that it establishes a system of representatives and committees recognises that this is an important measure in order to ensure that workers are able to participate and have their say and reduce risk.Actually if we're asking for the question of evidence the question would be: what was the evidence that the previous Government used to put in place an arbitrary exemption that this does not apply to workplaces with fewer than 20 employees and the answer is that there is not one—the answer is that there is not one. The previous Government established that there was a value in having workplace health and safety representatives. During the legislative process they arbitrarily determined to put this exemption in place and that is what has not been justified. It is well established and I have pointed to the fact that there is clear evidence both on the record and as a matter of logic that workers being empowered to be able to raise concerns and act on them in a formal way in respect of health and safety will reduce health and safety risk.Mr Baillie asked a question which has also been asked previously. Yes a small group of workers can request that there be a health and safety representative. No that does not include the owner of the business; it includes the workers within the business. In respect of a health and safety committee under new section 66 inserted by clause 5 that must be requested by five or more workers at that workplace.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister just following in line with the previous speakers I just really need clarification for myself and I'll give you an example. My daughter works in a cafe. There are four employees in the cafe: a couple of baristas a chef and a waitress. If one of those employees decides that they want a health and safety rep and a committee is that enough for the owner to establish one—to force the owner to establish one? One of those people who work there is actually the owner. Is the owner a health and safety rep?
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I have no doubt that my participation in the committee of the whole House on this bill is going to lead to some flashbacks and nightmares. I'll do my best not to sound like the grumpy drunk at the end of the bar. But as the former Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety who passaged the Health and Safety at Work Act through in 2015 I think there is a line of questioning that I'd like to do for establishing the case that this amendment is necessary.Why the flashbacks? Well this was the section of the bill that led to the lampooning of said Minister in relation to worm farms and lavender growing. It was because I was trying to be helpful by issuing what was effectively an exposure draft on a regulation that had not been passed. Unfortunately the unfortunate consequence of that was that probably no Minister since has ever offered draft secondary legislation in advance of the passage of a bill lest there be that sort of ventilation that thinking out loud may cause similar derision. I have for the record to state that the regulation did not contain such provisions.But I want to start with that case for change because the regulatory impact statement the departmental report talks about the considerable literature that worker participation reduces injury and disease. I don't think there is a doubt at a macro level that that would be the case. But does the Minister agree—these are the first of three questions. Firstly can he confirm that the bulk of the research that was quoted in the regulatory impact statement was either qualitative or actually referred to worker participation in high-risk industries such as underground mining and the energy sector and the chemical industry?Secondly would he agree that the definition or the goal of worker participation can take a number of forms separate from a health and safety committee or a health and safety representative? And can he confirm that the existing Act requires all businesses regardless of risk or size to encourage worker participation regardless of whether they have a health and safety rep or committee?And thirdly what work has WorkSafe or the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment done to check compliance with that obligation in the current regime and what was the level of compliance?
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I'm not quite sure the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety actually answered my question and maybe I'll phrase it differently. If you have one employee could that one employee technically request an establishment or election of one health and safety representative and technically under new section 66 in clause 5 also require a health and safety committee presumably consisting of one person? Is that technically possible under this bill?
Upston Louise; Russell DeborahHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. And I actually think the questions put by my colleague Tama Potaka are very thoughtful and actually really come to the—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK sorry. I'm just going to clarify this. Relevancy is the sole judge of the Chairperson. So I will judge whether or not matters brought up by members are relevant thank you. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you Madam Chair. On that then I look forward to an answer to that question from the Minister. I have a separate question which is a bit technical—I appreciate that—but given we are now at 31 May and this is the committee of the whole House so there are further steps for the bill to pass before it is passed and before it is signed assuming it does get signed by the Governor-General what is the confidence level that this can be actioned and implemented on 1 July given that we have less than a month to go? Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): Thank you for the question. It has taken a long time to get this legislation in place. In part that was because the systems were being built at the Ministry of Social Development and IRD to handle the technical complexities of making sure the payments actually flow through to the receiving families. I have been assured that those systems will be ready in time.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Is the Minister saying that activity and action has been taken by the Public Service ahead of Parliament's decision about the legislation passing or otherwise?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): That would in fact be a fairly common practice. Tax systems and social welfare systems are very very complicated as I am sure the member knows. Of course a lot of preparation work is going on in the background to make sure that this does all work.Parts 1 and 2 Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Child Support (Pass On) Acts Amendment Bill — In Committee
Potaka Tama; Russell DeborahTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Yes thank you Minister. Has the Government assessed the long-term liability of a child living in whānau that receive sole parent support? And has the Government assessed the long-term liability of a Māori child living in whānau that receive sole parent support? The final one is that we've seen some elevated reporting for Māori proposed in the ACC space is there an intention for this type of reporting for Manatū Whakahiato Ora and Te Tari Taake?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): I apologise to the member. Could I ask you to repeat the question? I blanked out for a moment.Tama Potaka: The third question?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The first question.Tama Potaka: Yeah has the Government assessed the long-term liability to the Crown of a child living in whānau that receive sole parent support? Hon Louise Upston: Point of order Madam Chair. It is actually really difficult to hear the question and the answer with all the chatter on the other side of the Chamber. As I said we've had limited scrutiny of this legislation we do want to support it but it will mean getting some answers to the questions. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Yes that is quite right. I was struggling to hear. So I would ask the Government benches to just quieten down a bit. Equally I don't know whether Tama Potaka's microphone is—or maybe it's his dulcet tones I don't know but I was struggling to hear him as well. So thank you for that. Now where were we?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): A little lost I think Madam Chair.TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): OK why don't I try and speak into the microphone—I feel like I'm at the karaoke down at Cuba Mall! Has the Government assessed the long-term liability to the State of a child living in whānau that receive sole parent support? Has the Government assessed the long-term liability of a Māori child living in a whānau that receives sole parent support? And we have seen some elevated reporting for Māori proposed for the ACC space—the compensation scheme is there an intention for this type of reporting for the Manatū Whakahiato Ora and Te Tari Taake?Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): Those are really interesting questions but I'm not sure they're comprehended within the scope of this bill. It would be a question to go to the broader Government stuff around benefits in general rather than the child support pass on. So I agree they're interesting questions but perhaps not in respect of this particular bill.
Hipango Harete; Russell DeborahHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Minister for clarifying those aspects of anomaly. Again a question was asked in the Chamber earlier this evening—still awaiting the answer—which is: how many children in the care of unsupported child beneficiaries are there that are not the direct recipients or benefactors of this legislation in comparison to those children who will be under a sole parent with this pass-on legislation? Which will give a clearer picture of the number of children in need of care and support from the State directly from the liable parent which is what this legislation is about.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): I don't have those numbers to hand and I believe I have already answered several times as to why the unsupported child's benefit and pass on has not been considered in this legislation. It is because there is a review of the unsupported child benefit in the legislation going on through Oranga Tamariki and Oranga Tamariki asked for that not to be considered as part of this particular piece of legislation.I could go back through my cards and count how many times I've answered that. I'm afraid the answer is not going to change.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): Sorry I was standing up here saying ahh"—ha ha! Thank you Madam Chair. When this whole child support pass through was being developed we worked out that there was a gap in the temporary additional support settings and the bill was an appropriate vehicle in which to correct that gap. The idea of temporary additional support is that so someone literally has enough to live on that they can actually buy some food pay their rent and have a place to live. There are cases where the obligation to pay child support out of their benefit would have left the person with—I never like using the term "negative income"—simply literally not enough money to pay for the necessities of life. The temporary additional support allows them to do that just to ensure that they are not left to starve in the streets because they're paying child support out of their benefit. It's a simple pragmatic matter.The member Louise Upston referenced the philosophical difference if you like a couple of times between one side of the House and the other and the thought that of course parents ought to support their children; indeed. The fact is that some parents don't have the resources to; some parents through all sorts of circumstances end up on benefit—and in this case on this side of the House we feel that the State ought to step in and provide support to enable them to get back going again. I can't resolve that difference between us I'm sorry."
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I think on the philosophical difference we're probably not going to get that bridge covered so I want to focus on a different area and that is the area of the temporary additional support. Again if you think about the social contract that taxpayers and recipients of welfare have there is a general agreement that where you can provide for yourself and your family you do and where you have responsibilities and where you have children you fulfil your responsibilities and obligations.So I'm interested—if the Minister could answer the questions around why there is a change in this bill to then say for the liable parent who is on a benefit themselves the expectation that the temporary additional support goes up which is of course paid by taxpayers to pay for their children.Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Ahh—thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Dr Deborah Russell.
Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Minister of Statistics): In terms of looking at other ways of supporting children in sole parent families of course our Government always considers this. However that's not the objective of this bill; the objective was to correct the anomaly between sole parent families and partnered-parent families where the payments made by liable parents to sole parent families were not passed on to the sole parent family until the amount of benefit was recovered whereas the payments that were made by liable parents to parents and partnered-parent families on benefit were passed straight on through to the receiving family. So it was correcting that anomaly which was the purpose of this bill.In terms of why this particular measure is being pushed through—though it has been in development for quite some time—there are about 41000 families. It's a fairly straightforward way of doing it. The calculations are fairly straightforward. There are some complexities for a number of families—although conceptually it's easy to talk about how the child support payment would be passed on in actual fact the legislation is very complex so they are being worked through and we expect to have a solution for those families within the next couple of years—actually at about the same time as will end up having some more evidence to be able to assess what's going on and whether or not this is an effective measure in particular with respect to encouraging more liable parents actually to make the payments that they're supposed to make.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. So we're aware of the 41000 sole parent benefit recipients that will benefit from this policy an average of $20 a week. And as someone who's been a recipient of the sole parent benefit $20 a week makes an enormous difference. So my question is really looking at the targeting of that additional support. Was there another way that could have better targeted the financial support to reach those with higher needs and if so what were they and why were they discounted? So that's one question. And then I want to come back to—because I think philosophically we've still got this sticking point between our side of the House and the other side of the House around whether or not a status in terms of when somebody is on a benefit for the reason that they are a sole parent is the simple justification as to why the child support should be captured as an offset against the cost of the sole parent benefit and I think that's still our philosophical sticking point. And I know there were other options considered and it appears from the regulatory impact statement that it became about the time pressures involved in implementing something because it had to be done by 1 July so the Government could say to the 41000 voters You've got some more money available." What were the other options had time not been an issue that would have been a preference if it was about delivering greater support? And was the issue of the comment I made earlier—because I'm not sure that that's been addressed—that the first port of call for welfare assistance is to use all available resources and in this case all available resources is the child support that is actually being collected by the liable parent."
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Minister for providing the statistics and the information. Again I'm drilling down on the point that has been made by the Government: that this bill is actually about entitlements for the sole parent. I'm focused on the actual rights and interests of the child. So the caregivers—under an unsupported child's benefit (UCB) who's looking after these children? They're vulnerable children who aren't being looked after by a sole parent or the liable parent. How many UCB beneficiaries and the number of children that are in their care are going to be detrimentally affected by the non-inclusion within this bill?