Lees-Galloway Iain: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Was he advised by officials that agriculture was in the highest risk category and dairy cattle farming in the second highest when determining which industries should have health and safety representatives; if so why did he remove them from the list?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: No. The highest-risk category was coal mining at 322 fatalities per 100000 employees. The second highest was forestry at 77. Fishing and hunting was at 35. Agriculture was at 12 fatalities per 100000 workers. It is also a bit arbitrary where you draw the line between risk categories and that is why the Government is currently consulting on the draft regulations.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a question on notice and the question asked whether he was advised by officials that agriculture was in the highest-risk category. He has not addressed that question.Mr SPEAKER: I agree entirely with the member. The best way forward is for me to allow the member two additional supplementary questions. [Interruption] Order! If the Hon Nick Smith wishes to stay to answer the balance of the question I suggest that he stop criticising me.Iain Lees-Galloway: Was the Minister advised by Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials that agriculture was in the highest-risk category?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. The advice from the department which I have received and have before me is that the highest-risk category was coal mining. The second-highest risk category was forestry. The third-highest risk category was fishing and hunting. Agriculture was the eighth highest.Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table the advice given to the Minister which demonstrates that agriculture is in the highest-risk category.Mr SPEAKER: On this particular occasion I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the advice that was received by the Minister on the categories and the risk ratings applied to them by—Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify whether that is the information that we have just had tabled by Iain Lees-Galloway?Hon Dr Nick Smith: No it is very different.Mr SPEAKER: There is no point in tabling it twice.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well I think that is the issue.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will put the leave as well and then members will have all the information they need in order to sort it out for themselves. Leave is sought to table the particular documentation presented by the honourable Minister. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Iain Lees-Galloway: When his office emailed the principal policy adviser at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment outlining his own criteria for determining high-risk industries was he aware that he was setting the criteria at exactly the right level to exclude dairy farming?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I cannot state what the Minister was or was not aware of and I apologise to the member. If you wish to put it to the Minister in writing I am sure that he will respond when he is present.Iain Lees-Galloway: Did he read the email from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment dated 17 August 2015 that warned that his proposed regulations would define minigolf worm farming and being a TV anchor as high risk but the entire construction industry as low risk; if so why did he still release the list unamended 2 days later?Mr SPEAKER: Hon Dr Nick Smith either of those two supplementary questions.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I cannot comment on what exact details the Minister had or had not read. What I would note is that the actual consultation risk categories that are currently out and that have been published by the Minister are in my view a very sensible allocation of the level of risk and do not include any of the anomalies that the member has referred to.Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table an email from the ministry’s policy adviser to the Minister’s office dated 17 August which outlined the issues with the regulations that he had set.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Iain Lees-Galloway: Why did he say to the media that he had looked into the groupings of various industries but “not as closely as the media clearly have” when his officials had looked that closely and specifically warned him that his approach had consequences that may be “unintended”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I would make is that the regulations are subject to consultation. The regulations that have been put out for consultation do not include any of those anomalies. Those anomalies exist when you analyse the data down to very very small groups of occupations where there are one or two employers only. Inevitably the data is not going to be reliable and you should not base the risk categories on those very small sample sizes; neither has the Minister done so in the regulations that are being consulted on.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a reasonably straight question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I listened very carefully to the question: why did he say something to the media when the officials said something else? He said that he thought the regulations were then subject to consultation. That is an answer that addresses the question.Iain Lees-Galloway: Why did he say to Cabinet that “I don’t believe it is onerous to have health and safety representatives in most cases.” while recommending that if there were to be an exclusion for small businesses it should apply to businesses with one to five employees rather than the much broader exclusion of 20 workers which Cabinet ultimately agreed to?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister provided that advice I am sure because he wants to provide improvements in health and safety and also wants to be practical for small businesses. Members on this side of the House do not think that for the majority of our farms that employ one or two people having an election for a health and safety person is actually that practical. What we think is practical is the requirement that the Minister has put in the law and that is that every employer—small or large farm or not—has to lift their game around occupational safety and have workers participating in health and safety programmes.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does this whole episode of ignoring officials’ advice and ignoring the advice of trade unions and business organisations not indicate that this Government has no moral compass and is willing to put people’s lives at risk to suit National’s vested interests?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No no quite to the contrary. I have heard members opposite give lecture after lecture that they actually understand small business. Well I say to members opposite: if you think that having an election over who might be the health and safety representative in the average farm in New Zealand where there are two workers that just shows how impractical those members are in trying to apply better workplace safety laws for this country.