Little Andrew: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionLittle Andrew: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14088. Text is subject to correction.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and to acknowledge that although this bill has been motivated and activated by the tragic and disastrous events of Pike River the issues underpinning it actually predate that dreadful event.I refer to a paper prepared by the Department of Labour in September 2008 in which it analysed the problems with the current framework for health and safety. One of the problems it identified was what it described as “a lack of procedural guidance on employee participation” which “leaves underground mining potentially open to commercial pressures and day-to-day worksite management decisions”. So it is right to look at this bill it having now been through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee against the problem that was identified even 2 years before the Pike River tragedy.Although there are many aspects of this bill that we find favour with—and on that basis we will be supporting it—there are nevertheless some concerns that we continue to have. It is good that the bill legislates for an independent stand-alone health and safety agency. It is something that for some time had been called for. That is in place in the form ofWorkSafe New Zealand.The disappointing aspect of the bill at present is the governance ofWorkSafe New Zealand and not just the governance but the power to establish advisory groups in it. In putting the board ofWorkSafe New Zealand together the relevant Minister is required to “have regard to the need to ensure” that the body has certain people amongst itsmembership. There is no requirement to have any specific category of person or a person from a relevant organisation; it is simply that the Minister has regard to the need.And then there are the particular classes of skill or competency described in clause 7 of the bill. After it talks about public sector governance and central government processes—we need people experienced in those—it goes on to describe people who have “perspectives of workers:” and people who have “perspectives of employers:”. We are now so diluting exactly what we are trying to get to here. This was modelled on the British Health and Safety Executive. When that was established in 1974 it was absolutely clear that they were people who came out of employers’ organisations people who came out of unions and workers’ organisations and people who were there to represent the Government. That is what we should have. That was in the 1974 British legislation about setting up a genuinely tripartite process.This bill in its current wording does not do that. It does not speak to tripartism. It speaks to the old neo-liberal public management theory which we have had for the last 30 years. In my submission it is inadequate and if it progresses in this current form and indeed this is the basis on whichWorkSafe New Zealand is established it will be found to be inadequate.The bill goes on to say under clause 8 that the governing board ofWorkSafe New Zealand can establish advisory groups. They are described as providing “a forum for dialogue … between the Government employers and workers”. So that is the level of tripartism. It is not about genuinely sharing decision making; it is about providing a forum for dialogue. So we think that the bill does not go far enough in providing a genuinely tripartite process and a shared decision-making process for employers and for workers through their unions.The next aspect that I want to draw attention to relates to the scope of the bill particularly in relation to the new workplace health and safety procedures—the establishment of what are now described as “site health and safety representatives” and “industry health and safety representatives”. When it comes to site health and safety representatives it is interesting that that part of it and indeed the entire bill now excludes quarrying which originally was included in the bill.Quarries are still unsafe places or at least are hazardous places. There are plenty of hazards in quarries no matter how big or small an employer the quarry owner might be. I have to say we take no comfort from the representations of the member Michael Woodhouse who just spoke on behalf of the Minister of Labour and seems to draw a distinction between the big employer and the small employer. When you are a worker the size of the workforce does not matter; it is the work that you do that is hazardous or dangerous not the size of your employer. So drawing these artificial distinctions is not helpful.We take no comfort from the fact that quarrying and indeed gold mining and other alluvial mining are to be excluded from this legislation. It is encouraging to see that tunnelling is still included at least in so far as site health and safety representatives are included. We should bear in mind that it is only a matter of a few weeks ago that we saw the aftermath of probably one of the worst tunnelling accidents we have had in this country where gas that had accumulated in a tunnel in an urban area ignited and blew up. It killed one person it blew the legs off another and it endangered and injured many others. So we should not see that tunnelling is any safer than indeed underground coalmining. It is still capable of being unsafe because of the build-up of gases whether they are natural piped or whatever.The unfortunate thing is that although tunnelling is covered by the site health and safety representative provisions of this bill the industry health and safety representative provisions do not include tunnelling. They are confined solely to undergroundcoalmining. There is no question that the piece of legislation animated and inspired by the tragic events of Pike River is of course going to cover underground coalmining. But as the royal commission takes pains to point out in its report the reality is that although it is talking about an incident an event a tragedy that arose in the underground coalmining industry—Pike River—many of its findings have a wider application. So it is disappointing that when it comes to a very innovative provision—at least innovative for New Zealand; not innovative for other parts of the world—it has been confined to that very small part of the industry underground coalmining.Nevertheless it is good to see that where workers and their unions are of a mind to do so they can appoint an industry health and safety representative. That will have some real power and ability to make some real difference and do some real things. If I can go back it is encouraging actually to see that the site health and safety representative will have some real power as well—some power to intervene and to stop work where necessary subject to requirements of good faith and subject to the obligation to communicate clearly and effectively with the employer. A site health and safety representative elected by workers will have the power to go directly to inspectors—go outside the business—and also to directly take steps to stop work where it is regarded as unsafe and unhealthy. I think that is a welcome provision.It is going to be interesting to see how well-supported that is particularly byWorkSafe New Zealand and its staff—its inspectors. If there was one thing that was consistent in the flavour of many of the submissions by employers that went to the select committee it was “Oh yes we think we need to do a lot more about health and safety but we don’t want anybody having these sorts of powers.” Employers particularly those that do not have unions or union representatives in the workplace appear to be in their submissions concerned about this possibility. They should not be concerned. If anything it is the workforces in those places that should feel encouraged and at least now have a greater sense of safety and a greater sense of confidence that they can go about their work knowing that somebody working shoulder to shoulder with them knows what is going on and has the power now to make meaningful steps to ensure health and safety in the workplace. So we welcome those things. We will have some slight changes to make in the Committee stage of this bill to improve I think these aspects.Just one final point on the mines rescue provisions of the bill is that it is disappointing to see that no provision has been made to confirm that the Mines Rescue trust controls a future incident.