McClay Todd; Rurawhe AdrianHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker thank you; it's an important debate to speak in. The National Party stands with most other parties in this Parliament believing we need good robust legislation frameworks to provide protection for workers so that when somebody is in the workplace they are safe. Indeed the Minister spoke about the tragedy at Pike River. Anything and everything that can be done that will make sure in similar circumstances workers are safe and their families know that those workers will return home to them is worthwhile considering and worthy of this House doing. But at the same time we need to balance out the intention to provide a framework for safe workplaces with actually where there is risk and where best Parliament should focus those rules and regulations. We want to raise the point around small businesses and the great challenge so many of them have when it comes to additional regulation and the cost that comes with that. In my electorate there are businesses large and small that are both within the category of the existing legislation of a high-risk industry or sector and there are businesses large and small that are not high risk where in fact there is little if any risk in that workplace. And every business I think that I speak to every good business owner is happy to take on responsibility and the cost of regulation where it makes sense and it is proven there is an issue or a problem and will address that properly and fairly and in a balanced way. When we were in Government as the Minister said the legislation was passed but we did listen during the committee processes which is why Parliament doesn't just rush legislation all the way through in urgency in all readings all of the time. I note that this is going off to select committee but the point I'm making is that the select committee process is where the public or those with interest on both sides of a piece of legislation are able to submit and be considered by the committee and then by the Government and where needed where practicable—as the Minister has used that term a number of times—changes are made to the legislation to make it better to make it more focused to make it fairer or to allow it to achieve the outcome it intends to—to focus on where there is risk and harm as opposed to imposing cost and obligation where there isn't risk or harm. That's the reason that legislation was changed to exempt small businesses of 20 employees or less of which we have a great number in New Zealand and to focus on the larger companies. But where a small business was in an area of high risk as described by the legislation or later by regulation that small business would also have the obligation. The Government hasn't gone to seek the position of small businesses in New Zealand on this legislation to talk to those that aren't currently covered by the legislation because they may have five workers only—not 25 21 because they would be captured irrespective of their sector—and who are not in a high-risk area to see whether or not they think this is reasonable; is there is a better way to ensure that workers have a say around health and safety or is this legislation necessary? And if those small businesses say there is a gap here in as far as health and safety is concerned for small businesses we accept that. It's disappointing the Government hasn't done that.I accept that was a Labour Party manifesto pledge before the election. We're going to see next year: the Labour Party along with some other parties will promise all sorts of things if they think it will get them votes. But the problem that we have here is they didn't go and talk to the small business community and therefore they are saying We're assuming there's a risk and we're going to cover small businesses with that even though there is no evidence that there is additional risk or that the current system is not working." And here is the challenge with that: with regulation with committees with all sorts of things like that comes cost and for some small businesses that is a great cost. But putting aside the amount of that cost businesses often now are having to pass these costs on. And so the very people that the Government is saying they are trying to protect in the workforce who are also consumers themselves are going to find—in many cases where small businesses who currently are not captured by this legislation because they are low risk and there is no evidence that the workers don't have a say and are not safe in the workplace—that they are going to have to pass that cost on through price increases to the consumer. And the outcome will be that costs go up.As we've seen so many times with this Government the well-meaning decisions that they make actually don't achieve the things that they hope to. It very much can be a very broad approach to these things as opposed to focusing on where the harm is and dealing with it. And with that cost passed on to consumers the consumer is worse off without any actual real gain when it comes to health and safety. I want to give two examples in the time I have left. One is around a—well let's use the example of the Minister. A small mining company with five employees is already covered by this legislation because they are in a high-risk area. But if we take a small business on the high street that's retail that opens from nine in the morning to five in the afternoon and actually they sell clothes—they're not covered because they're low risk although there could be training and there could be all sorts of things going on. If one of those people that works there requests it the Minister says it's not an obligation it's not mandatory but if one worker requests it it must happen. And I ask the question of the Minister: in as far as health and safety is concerned where is the evidence of the risk in the small business with five retail employees? And why is this necessary? Other than the Minister saying she wants every worker to have a say where is the evidence that there is harm being done or actually there is risk there? And why does it need to be addressed? And if the Minister has that evidence then actually that's different but it hasn't been presented. It is actually just "We said we will do this so we're going to and it doesn't matter what the cost is."The Minister said it's not mandatory but if one worker says they want it a committee has to be set up and that committee of the five people might only be the five employees in that business—if they say they also want these things they have to do it. The business then mandatorily must go and train somebody in a business of five people. If after that training that person leaves to go I don't know to another workplace that actually has more than 20 employees they would be covered by this legislation but the business has to train somebody else because the law requires them to. And if they don't there is a cost to them because they are breaking the law.Therein lies the challenge of this. There will be cost to small businesses where there isn't risk identified and this legislation isn't necessary because there isn't a problem with health and safety but it doesn't do anything for the businesses where anything additional for the businesses that are high risk—because high-risk businesses are already covered by the legislation irrespective of their size. And so there's cost without any additional benefit for health and safety with the exception of the Minister saying they said they would do it so they have.Here's an example of how this doesn't work in this House. There was a member of Parliament not so long ago in the Labour Party who raised issues that could go to health and safety because he believed he was being bullied and he believed that he was not in a good place. He asked for a committee to be set up. He asked for a representative to support him. What did they do? There was more than 20 of them. They chucked him out and now they're running in a by-election. So Minister on the one side you're going to burden small businesses of five people or more but actually when it comes to health and safety so close to you and others—yeah turn all your heads away—actually I can see why you wanted to get rid of Mr Sharma. He's very effective on the campaign trail of holding the Government to account but he was not—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon TODD McCLAY: Well you laugh but he was the only one out there saying along with the National Party candidate Tama Poaka that there was—Hon Members: Tama what—who?Hon TODD McCLAY: —Potaka—a great problem with crime there. The Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on one of the few times she was back in New Zealand from her trips overseas says "Yes we are a little bit worried about all of this sort of thing but what are we going to do?" But the point here is when it is close to home they turn a blind eye but when it comes to burdening small businesses without any additional gain at all they're actually going ahead with that. We will be responsibly working through this at the committee stage to try to improve the legislation to make sure there isn't burden upon small business but at the same time there is an additional cost. But at the moment we can't support this legislation because it doesn't deliver anything for health and safety that's not already there.Marja Lubeck: Mr Speaker?SPEAKER: Yeah before I call you let's keep the by-election campaigning out of this debate."