Duynhoven Harry: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Energy Safety Review Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:635;Page:6665] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I would like to thank colleagues who have spoken for their support for the bill and for their positive comments. Can I say that it is a little unfortunate that the speaker who spoke immediately before me was referred to as “erstwhile” by his good friend and colleague Phil Heatley. I think “erstwhile” means former or at one time rather than current. However let us talk about the bill before us. I would like to tell Mr Heatley that the consultation—and I absolutely accept that the plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers of this country felt very aggrieved and believed they had not been consulted in the process of the preparation of this bill; I absolutely accept that that was their feeling— 
Phil Heatley 
: They came to see me. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: They came to see me as well of course as an electorate MP. Can I assure Mr Heatley that I am a very active and very busy electorate MP. Can I also tell him that the consultation with the plumbers drainlayers gasfitters and electrical workers was much the same. It was done through their organisations that represent them. Unfortunately as the Commerce Committee members well know—and I think Mr Heatley was a member of the select committee from time to time; and his colleagues on the select committee well know—the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board had some quite substantial difficulties that resulted in a complete review of the organisation of that particular industry. 
The lack of consultation between the board and the participants in the industry caused a lot of grief. I am pleased that what has occurred since then has redressed some of the problems. I would like to thank all members of the select committee especially the chair Katherine Rich and Maryan Street who led from the Labour side for the huge work that the whole committee did but especially those two in resolving some of the issues. 
There was a lot of consultation with the electricity and gas sectors over many years leading up to this bill which was actually prepared and written in the time of my predecessor. Those making submissions to the select committee recognised quite clearly that there had been a lot of consultation and work done jointly in trying to make a whole new bill to look after the interests of the energy safety side. There was not the same level of consultation with plumbers and drainlayers— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why didn’t you bring them together? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I did try to bring them together. Plumbers drainlayers and gasfitters have traditionally been one industry but the energy safety service oversees all of energy safety—electricians and the gas industry. As a result the gasfitting side of plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying had been consulted and well involved but unfortunately the plumbers and drainlayers had not received the same level of consultation from their board. 
 Can I show Mr Heatley this tattered remnant of my own registration as an electrician from many years ago. I have carried it in my wallet from the day I was awarded it as an apprentice. The reason I have carried it—[ 
Interruption 
] No this is the replacement one from 1984 but the original was from 1974 or 1975. The reason I carry it even though I do not carry my teaching diploma or my masters degree is the fact that this was the first solid qualification I had after I left school. There are many many electricians plumbers and mechanics who are very proud of the initial qualification that they received and for that reason my argument to the officials was that we should keep registration because it is the core of competency. It is just as in the aviation industry: a pilot is registered with the Civil Aviation Authority as a pilot and then he or she has a currency that allows that pilot to practise at that time. That was the regime we have adopted and I am very pleased that that is where we have come to in the bill. We have registration that says someone has done the basic core work and needs to be competent in the job and then there is a practising licence. 
The original proposal was about lining up with the building industry—the builders the architects and many others—but there has been a rethink on that issue partly because of all the submissions and partly because of the Minister and others saying: “Hey is this a step too far? Should we keep registration?” and that is where I have always been and I am very pleased that the select committee has agreed with that. 
I say to Dr Sharples who has put forward an amendment on employer licences that this issue has been very solidly considered. The original concept of employer licences was to ensure that employers were confident that the employees working in their particular industry were competent in the particular tasks and in the particular equipment in that industry—power station people substations etc. Employer licences have been valid in the electricity sector and used for well over a decade. They are an alternative to individual electrical worker licences but still require the same high levels of competency of workers. There had been some discussion—and this is what the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and many in the industry argued strongly against—about dispensing with the concept of employer licences. This was a matter of quite some discussion. I personally had many discussions with workers in the electrical industry who were very very concerned about this issue. 
Electrical work is high risk and employees need to be sure that their fellow workers are suitably qualified. Employer licences do require that they do require the competence so for that reason there has been nothing in the bill that will reduce the need for electrical worker competency in the workplace; rather the competency requirements for individual workers need to be matched for an employer licence to be granted or indeed for a practising licence if one is a registered worker under the normal registrar of electrical workers. 
I think the issues Dr Sharples has raised have been well covered in this legislation. I think what we have arrived at with the assistance of the select committee is a bill that covers a number of the issues very very well indeed. I thank the Commerce Committee for its work. It has been thorough. This has not been an easy amalgam of different trades and industries to manage in one bill. That is why the select committee decided to break the bill into two halves and then to combine it at a later stage when the issues were sorted. I believe they have been largely sorted. There is a Supplementary Order Paper from myself which will be debated later in the process that addresses some of the issues involved. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit Subpart 2 of new Part 10.