Little Andrew: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionLittle Andrew: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14384. Text is subject to correction.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. Part 1 has effectively a lot of administrative aspects to it. It sets up the WorkSafe organisation. It enables the efficient effective and hopefully fair and just transfer of existing staff whose employer is the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to the new legal employer which will be WorkSafe New Zealand. I know that some of the officials in the ministry who are anticipating the transfer of their employment to WorkSafe are excited by that prospect are looking forward to it and are energised by it and that is what we need.I commend the Minister of Labour the Hon Simon Bridges for a set of provisions including one I think that responded to an earlier Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 371 by Brendan Horan which was very concerned about whether or not some service-related entitlements would survive the transfer of employment. I see that that has been achieved although my own view was that that had been achieved in the original bill but then Mr Horan has a level of wisdom and sagacity that often eludes most of us. So that is good.There is an issue however that I think does call for further consideration and comment and indeed is the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper in my name Supplementary Order Paper 387 and that is the governing board of WorkSafe New Zealand. One of the critical things that came out of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy’s report was the comment about tripartism. The commission drew upon the wealth of knowledge and literature that now prevails about what happens in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has very much blazed the trail and led the way when it comes to health and safety governance at an institutional level and at an enterprise level. It did that of course a long time ago. It set up its dedicated health and safety body called the Health and Safety Executive in 1974 after a succession of workplace catastrophes including the Aberfan coalmine disaster in Wales in the 1960s. It came up with the model that meant that even at the institutional governance level at the governing board of the Health and Safety Executive it should have true tripartism—equal representation of employers of workers through their unions and obviously of the Government.The bill as it is currently worded allows a board of at least five but no more than nine and then sets out a range of criteria for appointees. Only one of them refers to the member’s having experience in or capability in amongst other things “perspectives of workers”. “Perspectives of workers”—what does that mean? The only real genuine and authentic perspective of a worker comes from a worker’s representative themselves. I think what is important about tripartism what makes it powerful and enduring is that the tripartite representatives come from the constituency that they are representing. It is not a ministerial appointment. It comes from the constituency itself.I have proposed Supplementary Order Paper 387 which does away with the current wording of the bill and replaces subclause 1 in clause 7 with a new subclause to establish a board comprising “3 representatives appointed by the organisation recognised for the time being as the peak body representing workers”—that is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions which of course is recognised as the peak body. We have that already because the Government already recognises peak bodies for workers and for employers. For workers currently it is the Council of Trade Unions. For employers currently it is Business New Zealand.The Government currently recognises those two peak organisations for the purposes of representation at the ILO the International Labour Organization an organisation that is itself dedicated to tripartite representation—not an equal balance. It is 50 percent workers and employers or 25 percent each and 50 percent for Government. Well this is a tripartism that sets up equal representation. There are three representatives from the peak organisation for workers three representatives from the peak organisation for employers and three representatives of Government. That I think is genuinely tripartite. The Government can fashion its representatives. It can allow for some independence of course and that is very important.A consequential amendment to effect that is also to delete a couple of the references in subclause 2 to clause 7 with a genuinely tripartite body. It is not necessary to make the references in paragraph (d) and paragraph (da) to perspectives of workers and perspectives of employers. It will still be necessary in terms of the Government appointees to ensure that there is public sector governance knowledge and experience; central Government process knowledge and experience; health and safety; and all the rest of it.The purpose of this is very clear. It is to truly reflect what in my view the royal commission was getting at and that is genuine tripartism. That means all those interests coming together even at that senior level the policy-making level and with all the powers that WorkSafe New Zealand will have will ensure that there is a full balance of perspectives taken and that it is not driven entirely by nor totally accountable to just Government. This is a body that must reflect and represent those elements that make up workplaces and industries in New Zealand—that is workers and employers—with the Government providing that overlying and perhaps that overarching provision there as well.I would urge members to vote for that. This is an opportunity for us as we establish WorkSafe to establish a state-of-the-art organisation as we move towards state-of-the-art health and safety provision health and safety regulation and health and safety regulation enforcement. That I think is the genuine ambition of the Government. It was the genuine ambition of the previous Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson it was the genuine ambition of the interim Minister of Labour Chris Finlayson and I believe—I am prepared to infer—that it is the genuine ambition of the current Minister of Labour Simon Bridges. So I would urge the Government and the Minister to look closely and carefully at that amendment and support it.I want to make one other comment and that is about advisory groups. I made this comment before. It is a good idea to have advisory groups but the advisory groups provided for in clause 8 of the bill really have no teeth. Really if they are to be meaningful in addition to having representatives from the relevant industries and having people who are knowledgable in those industries and who can assist with the preparation of the drafting of good regulations and good codes of practice and with setting good standards then it is preferable that they have a little more teeth as well. Beyond just advising the board of WorkSafe perhaps their power should be a little more meaningful than that.Nevertheless it is a good idea in terms of industry engagement to get the best possible regulation and the best possible standards and to be able to delegate that to advisory boards. I would just perhaps ask the Minister how he sees that operating to ensure that those advisory groups and the role that they play is genuinely meaningful and will genuinely engage the industries and interest people to get them on board to do it. I look forward to the Minister’s response and contribution to this part as we debate Part 1.This is the setting up. It is laying the foundation for the new WorkSafe New Zealand which will be the flag bearer for health and safety in New Zealand—the dedicated agency that we have been asking for all this time which both the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the recent independent advisory committee endorsed—so it is good if we take this opportunity to get it right. I think there is a willingness within this House tonight to do that and I hope the Minister will listen very carefully. We will support the change that has been put up for governance. We will answer the query about how the advisory groups will function in practice so that we get the best-quality input from across industry and from the workforces within that industry. On that point as I say we look forward to supporting this bill and to seeing New Zealand at last take that great and very important step into the future with the best possible health and safety administration that we can muster.