O'Connor Damien: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionO'Connor Damien: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14386. Text is subject to correction.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I rise with pleasure to follow on from my colleague Andrew Little and to support the passage of this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill from the Government. However I must point I guess to some of the questions that need to be answered by the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour and to some of the issues that will arise as an outcome of the legislation. As my colleague Mr Little said much of this Part 1 refers to the transitional provisions in setting up WorkSafe New Zealand. I have to say that on the weekend I had a discussion at the opening of the new expanded mines rescue building and base just north of Greymouth where this was a topic of conversation and most people welcomed the progress in this area.There are a couple of things in working through. Right up front in Part 1 here it states that “relevant health and safety legislation” means the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 the Machinery Act and a couple of others like the Electricity Act. Most of those pieces of legislation are quite old. The question I have of the Minister and I guess of officials is that what we do not want to be doing in making what is substantive progress in the area of workplace health and safety—setting up WorkSafe New Zealand—is be constrained by reference to legislation that in the Electricity Act goes back to 1992. The Gas Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Act as we know were passed in 1992.The Health and Safety in Employment Act was a flawed piece of legislation—absolutely. I am not sure that the Electricity Act or the Gas Act is but what I want to know is that in referencing back to those pieces of legislation technology or wisdom has not surpassed key reference points in the legislation. I want to know that WorkSafe New Zealand as set up can actually have some sound drivers aside from the legislation we are passing here but also that it is not referencing back to legislation that may be flawed. As I say I think we have clearly established that the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 is seriously flawed when it comes to some areas of workplace safety although the officials might not agree. We would say that in forestry and we would say that in mining there are big gaps and we need WorkSafe New Zealand to get on and do a good job.I support the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 387 put forward by my colleague Andrew Little. Tripartite approaches towards workplace safety are essential. The sad result of the terrible Pike River tragedy was in part because there was not equal strength from employees when it came to raising issues raising concerns in the area of the workplace and how it was operating. We need to know that those people who put their lives on the line have fair representation right at the top level of policy development of practice and of I guess inspection ultimately to ensure that this happens.I have to say that the Government has made some changes. They have been welcomed throughout the mining industry and all the functions here stated in clause 10 are well and good but they mean nothing if the resources are not provided and the Government has not provided adequate resourcing for the current responsibilities of the new High Hazards Unit and the other areas of workplace health and safety inspections particularly in mining. Although we may be comforting ourselves in the Committee here tonight that we are passing legislation moving forward and setting up WorkSafe New Zealand I can say categorically that the resources that the Minister and his colleagues have put up so far are inadequate—totally inadequate. I want to hear from the Minister—it is not in the legislation—a commitment to adequate resourcing that means that people are not compromised in their duties.A sad submission to the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was from a mines inspector whom I know personally whose life has been shattered by this but who I know felt compromised almost from the time that he took on the job as a mines inspector. I think that we all share some of the responsibility of that inadequate resourcing for him. But it is not good enough for us to pass legislation in Parliament upgrading standards upgrading the systems but not providing the resources. That is a regular comment that I hear from families of the Pike River men who lost their lives—people who are monitoring progress in this area very closely—because they have a real commitment. Their husbands or fathers have paid a huge price to learn the lessons that are delivering us the legislation in the Committee at the moment. I hope the Minister will—and I am sure he will—rise and give us some assurances in this area. It is essential.I hope that the Government will also see the wisdom of supporting Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 387 which does and will entrench a tripartite approach to health and safety. No employer is on the job the whole time and can know the minute-by-minute risk and the changing risk profile that occur in an underground mine or in a quarry or in any underground situation. We have had an explosion in a tunnel in Auckland so it is not just in underground mines. We have had tragedies we have had workplace accidents where they should not have occurred. We are boosting and bolstering the functions of these people their obligations but I have not yet seen the resourcing.This is on behalf of not only the people of the West Coast the region where much of the mining occurs but also the people of Huntly—all the people who work in places of higher risk than the offices that we normally sit in on a day-to-day basis and that most of the officials sit in. We can manage our risk. But until people go underground—and indeed there are people in the new superministry the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment an organisation that has a huge range of responsibilities who have responsibilities for mine safety and have never been underground. I find that strange if not alarming. I would hope that every single person involved in the development of these regulations and of these practices goes underground for a couple of hours because until you have been there you cannot appreciate what these men are working in every minute of their shifts. The lack of appreciation and the casual approach that was taken in 1992—that the employer will know and manage the risk—has been shown to be totally inadequate to have been in fact in hindsight irresponsible.We have moved on. I acknowledge the Government and its efforts to improve legislation to make the changes as recommended—not all the changes. We need Supplementary Order Paper 387 from Mr Little to implement the changes recommended by the royal commission around tripartite representation. If the Government once again steps back from the wisdom of that long and agonising process for the families—but in my view a very sound process that delivered sound recommendations—then it has gotto have a pretty good reason. I have not heard one yet when it comes to the Minister’s proposal to appoint all the people to WorkSafe New Zealand. I am sure the Minister will take the opportunity to explain why but the people who have their lives on the line need to have some input into the health and safety regime under which they work. That is the least that can be expected for them. On that issue and the one of resourcing—