Smith Lockwood: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16153] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I believe that the Minister owes the Committee much more by way of explanation than he has given us so far. I support my good colleague Dr Wayne Mapp when he said the Minister was quite misleading as to the import of clause 97 particularly in Part 3. It is important that members go back to the principal Act the Health and Safety in Employment Act. As Dr Wayne Mapp has pointed out already there are all sorts of matters in there that make it clear that there is far more to this matter than just the simple omission of the words “by notice in the  
Gazette 
”. I believe that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation of why this measure is necessary. Let me deal with the issue about why it is necessary and then why I am concerned about the dangers of it. 
I ask why this change is necessary because for generations the official way of notification to the people of New Zealand from Ministers has been by way of notice in the  
Gazette 
. One of the beauties of that system is that it saves compliance costs for business because people do not have to look in various places for decisions made by Ministers. They know the one place they can find that information is in the  
Gazette 
. If something is in the  
Gazettee 
 an employer knows that that is it. So my first question is why there is this change. Putting notices in the  
Gazette 
 is a very simple thing for the Government to do and it saves employers compliance costs because they do not then have to go and search in order to find out where something is notified. They do not have to wonder whether they have to search the transcripts of radio news for announcements made by a Minister. I admit that most employers have access to the Internet but not all do. Those who do not would have to have someone go and search the Internet and that person would then wonder whether to go to the Government website the Minister’s website the Department of Labour website or just where else to find the information. My first question is why is there this change? There has to be some reason for it and I think the Committee needs to know the reason because it does not cost the Government a lot to put notices in the  
Gazettee 
 and it will add to employers’ compliance costs as they now seek to verify information. 
I want to go on to why this measure causes me even more concern than that. One notes from clause 97 that section 19G(1) of the principal Act is the bit that is being amended. When I went back to that section to find out exactly what it was all about I found that actually section 19G(3) caused me the most concern. I found from that section that the Minister may delegate his or her power under section 19G(1) to one or more persons. That becomes a concern to an employer if a union member can come along to the employer and say the Minister has approved that member to have delegated authority to specify training courses. Presumably the Minister can delegate that under section 19G(3) to one or more persons. Now I would not mind betting that the Minister intends to delegate some of these powers to unions. What guarantee does an employer have when a union delegate says there is an official course he or she must follow that afternoon? How does the employer verify that? Quite clearly the Minister will not have put a notice anywhere because he has delegated his powers. Where has the union put a notice? How does the employer verify that? 
I believe the Minister owes an explanation to the Committee. On behalf of the Government he should tell us what is up here. What trickery is up here that requires this amendment? It was bad enough before that the powers could be delegated but at least there had to be a notice in the  
Gazette 
. If a union delegate said to an employer that he or she had been delegated the authority to set up a course and that the employer was to let the delegate go that afternoon at least there had to be a notice in the  
Gazette 
 where the employer could check up that it was bona fide for the health and safety employment officer to attend the training programme. It may well be a union training programme but at least there was some assurance to the employer that it was bona fide. This provision removes that protection.