O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): In reading through this bill although I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I have to say I took some comfort from the question that sprang into my mind. Is this another improvement in legislation because of the Pike River tragedy? I read through this and it is referring in Part 1 to health and safety breaches—Involvement in breaches"—and there could be many if you read the royal commission report. It has identified a number of people none of whom of course have been prosecuted—none of them at all—because the Government has chosen not to. But I guess that if this piece of legislation passes does that clarify the position for any Government—particularly a National Government which seems to struggle around ethical issues in this area—and would it help it push ahead with the prosecution in a way that most New Zealanders would think was fair and reasonable?It says here in new section 142W(2) to be inserted in the Employment Relations Act by clause 4 here: "However if the breach is a breach by an entity such as a company partnership … or sole trader a person who occupies a position in the entity …"—the point being that it is anyone involved in the breach—"only if that person is an officer of the entity." and it goes on in new section 142W(3) to explain who an officer of an entity is. Actually most people probably do not need to read through this but post - Pike River the Government struggled and the department of labour struggled to work out who was an officer of the company. In fact it was not the mine manager they said—"We shouldn't prosecute that person." Well who else then?Well by definition in this piece of legislation an officer of an entity is "(a) a person occupying the position of a director of a company if the entity is a company:". So a director of a company that is in breach of any health and safety provision in any workplace is liable or could be prosecuted—which is the way I would read it—and actually it is pretty good law. But I would have thought that that was in place now. I would have thought that the mine manager at the Pike River mine and indeed the directors of the company should be liable for knowingly allowing an unsafe situation at that mine to continue.There is another question which is perhaps answered here as to why the Government did not proceed with prosecution. It says here in new section 142W(3)(e) "any other person"—this is an officer of the entity—"occupying a position in relation to the entity if the person is in a position to exercise significant influence over the management or administration of the entity." Actually a mines inspector—that is an employee of the Government who should have been doing their job—was in a position to close down the mine. They were in a position to say: "This is unsafe." and could have done so. So I guess that would say that that person is in a position of significant influence over the management or administration of the entity.So in fact this change here—insignificant as many might see it—does a couple of things. Firstly it tidies up law that might be untidy or it is a whole new revelation of completely inadequate law which the Government was happy to sit on or to not act on because it did not proceed with any of the prosecutions. The Chairman in his wisdom kind of nods his head when he says: "Well it is a tidy-up of the law." I accept that but how could we have in law such un-clarity or such a lack of clarity—I will sort that one out Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It's clear.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The point being that I still think the Government had the ability to proceed with prosecutions in the Pike River mine disaster without this change in legislation because any sensible New Zealander understands that anyone responsible in that company be it the mine manager or be it the directors should have been held responsible in some way. Not a thing—all paid off by insurance money.I have to say in conclusion that this minor change in the law here makes huge progress for the families of the 29 people who still lie in the bowels of the Pike River mine. I do not think they realised what was going on tonight. In fact I am not sure I realised myself until I read the legislation. I think that those of us who were not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did not realise that this significant change in legislation probably prompted—although the Government would never admit it—by that terrible tragedy is progressing through Parliament and I think it will offer some comfort for those families to know that their loss was not for no reason at all—that in fact they have made some progress.So I am not going to go on other than to say I acknowledge that the Government is making the change. It seems as though it was necessary—although I do not buy into it being absolutely necessary—to make officers of the company people in the company and people responsible for actions at a workplace ultimately responsible for the health and safety of their workers. That is what this is about. And so I hope that it proceeds without amendment and as quickly as possible so that we do not have another Pike River mine disaster."