Fenton Darien: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFenton Darien: Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14587. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am going to endeavour to do my best to speak on this bill tonight. As you can hear I have somewhat of the lurgy that has been going around Parliament. However I will do my best to put my views and those of others on this very very important bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill on record. It is in the context of a lot of work that has gone on and a dreadful tragedy of course which occurred some 3 years ago now and bearing in mind as we always do the loss of the lives of 29 miners—the unnecessary loss of life—and the work that came out of the inquiry of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coalmine Tragedy. That made recommendations around how we could get on top of our appalling health and safety record and the sheer negligence that had developed in the mining industry. That is what has given rise to this bill. I also want to recognise that there has been a health and safety task force. Some of its recommendations—I think it reported back in July—have been incorporated into or have informed this bill. Also an exposure draft has been released by the Minister of Labour on a new health and safety in employment Act which is being consulted on at the moment. So there are multiple changes going on in health and safety and we also say so there should be given our disgraceful record of health and safety in this country.Part 1 helps establish the stand-alone agency called WorkSafe which was a recommendation of the Pike River coalmine commission of inquiry and also of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. Both made very comprehensive reports and I think have built consensus around the need for major change in our approach to the health and safety of people at work. That is why Labour is supporting this bill has been pleased to participate in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee process and will work constructively on other health and safety changes that are coming forward. That said I cannot go far without noting that it is a real pity that at the same time that we are really trying to tackle health and safety in New Zealand and that we are really trying to get New Zealand off the map of the worst health and safety death and injury records in the world we are changing employment law which I think will have only a detrimental effect.However turning to Part 1 the task force was particularly clear about the need for tripartite involvement. The Minister has been a little bit cute on that. He did tell theTransport and Industrial Relations Committee earlier this year that the WorkSafe board would include union representation. He actually used the “u” word which I thought was pretty brave of him because it is not in this bill. It is not in this bill anywhere. I recall that it actually made some headlines. People said: “Oh the Minister of Labour is going to have unions in this new task force—shock horror!”. But of course when you look at what is actually in the bill although there has been an amendment that has made an improvement in who is on the board of WorkSafe New Zealand it does not pick up the recommendations of the task force and does not recognise tripartism in the way that we certainly understand it and that the International Labour Organization understands it. I think that is why Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 387 has an excellent description of what should be in the bill. It should include a board of three representatives of Business New Zealand; three from the Council of Trade Unions which is the most representative organisation of workers in this country; and three appointed by the Minister to represent other interests. That would be a truly tripartite board. As I said this is what the health and safety task force originally recommended.I have heard no clear reason from the Minister why he is departing from that. We had no real explanation in the select committee. We asked the officials at length to explain to us what “tripartism” means. Some of our National colleagues on the select committee had no idea and were I think a little bit outraged at the idea that the Council of Trade Unions would have some role. I recall that one of the members wanted to go to great lengths to talk about the very small number of unions that are outside of the Council of Trade Unions—why they did not get a say. Well you know they can. They can come and make submissions and so on. The point of a tripartite board like that would be that it was a genuinely independent voice for workers employers and of course the Government as well. That means there is consistent representation. There is a consistent voice.The reason that we are so strong on this is that if you look at the theme through both the Pike River commission of inquiry report and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety it is the fact that the worker’s voice in particular in health and safety over the last 20 years has been lost. Employee participation has become a tick-the-box exercise. It has become something that many employers control and where workers are simply afraid to stand up and have their voices heard. I think we have seen the consequences of that. I do not want to keep going over the tragedy. I would like to know from the Minister though whether he feels obliged to get on his feet to explain why he objects to the recommendation of a tripartite board. I would be interested to hear his views on that.The other thing about Part 1 that I am a bit concerned about is that the functions provided for WorkSafe in the bill are pretty much a shadow of those that were recommended by the health and safety task force. For example the agency has no power to approve codes of practice. There is no role in making or amending regulations it has no clear lead role in workplace health and safety it cannot make recommendations about the nature of funding and it has no role in the important job of fostering tripartism or working with unions. I think that that is a real shame. I think that it is a missed opportunity. There is an opportunity for us to revisit the issue of the board representation. Hopefully we would see from that tripartite leadership as we have seen on the health and safety task force and as we have seen through the business forum for health and safety as well where it has been prepared to stand for business and say: “Actually yes workers should have a formal voice through their unions and we shouldn’t be afraid of that.” So we are supporting this bill but I think that it is a shame that we cannot get this agency off on the right foot. We need to accept our history and own up to it. That exclusion of workers and workers’ organisations in health and safetyand the changes to the Health and Safety Act in Employment Act 1992 were a fundamental mistake which have ultimately led to not only the tragedy of the Pike River mine but many others—the disgraceful record that we have where we see people die or get injured every week in our workplaces.I accept that this Government is genuine and I congratulate it on the work that it has led and I congratulate the Minister of Labour’s predecessor Kate Wilkinson as well. I congratulate them on that work but I think there are two things: let us understand that unless there is a genuine workers’ voice this is going to be problematical and will continue to be problematical. Let us also—please Minister—understand that the other changes that you are proposing to legislate for are going to undermine the very very good work that is being done in this bill. So in Part 1 there are those two things that I have mentioned. There is plenty more to mention and I will have another call I hope.If I do not get the opportunity later I do just want to mention the issue about the transfer of workers. I have not had a look at Brendan Horan’s Supplementary Order Paper 371—I am sure it is good and we will support it; actually I do not know whether we will support it but I will have a look at it. But what I do not want to see is a continuation of the botch-up that we have had with health and safety inspectors in the inspectorate who where we have had this change programme have been through endless change. It was part of the problem that contributed to the Pike River mine disaster in fact where they were so under-resourced that they could not even get the travel costs to travel to inspect the mines. So let us make sure that in transferring those health and safety inspectors from the old Department of Labour—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment; whatever it is called these days—to the new agency those things are taken care of as well and that there is proper resourcing and that we get up to our full complement of—