Lees-Galloway Iain: Health and Safety Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Health and Safety Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 30 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5523. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Before I address the substance of the Health and Safety Reform Bill I would like to acknowledge in particular the families of the victims of the Pike River tragedy and in fact the families of all workers killed and injured at work particularly in the past few years as these changes to health and safety law in New Zealand have been considered. I would particularly like to acknowledge Deborah McMillan Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse who are in the gallery today and who have been vocal advocates for real reform and real change. This is personal for them. It is personal for them not just because they have lost loved ones in tragic events at work but also because for Anna and Sonya in particular the Government and the Prime Minister went to them and promised real change and real reform. That was his solemn promise to them as to the way that the Government and the nation would remember the tragic loss that befell their families. They are here today to tell Parliament that they are dissatisfied with the way that this legislation has come back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.It is with absolute regret that the Labour Party and other Opposition parties have had to withdraw their support for this bill. When it was introduced we were enthusiastic about this legislation being a progressive and bold step forward for health and safety in New Zealand. We need it. Sure the Pike River tragedy created the political impetus for change but if we had stepped back and looked objectively at New Zealand’s appalling rate of death and injury in the workplace with or without the Pike River disaster it was time for change. Change was long overdue. We had to stop falling for the misguided ideology of deregulation which was the overwhelming driver of the appalling health and safety record and which was in fact the thing that led to the Pike River disaster.The bill as it was introduced was based on solid international evidence. It was based on Australian law that has been in place and has been working well for 10 years. It was based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and it was based on the Government’s own independent task force on health and safety. It was good law it was evidence based and it drew on international best practice that we know and that has been demonstrated to make for safer workplaces. The changes that have been made at the select committee are based on misinformation and myth-making that the Government allowed to carry on out in the public.Phil Twyford: Encouraged.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Certain members of the Government actually encouraged the myth-making. It was pleasing when the Minister finally came to the select committee for the estimates hearing and admitted that many of the stories out there about this bill and about the way health and safety laws are implemented are pure myth and pure fantasy. But it was too late. By that stage too many people in business had become fearful of what this legislation would do. The members opposite have caved in to that blatant and rampant fearmongering. Instead of dealing with it instead of telling the truth and instead of working with businesses to make them feel more secure about what this law would do they have weakened it to the point that there is almost no point in passing this legislation any more.The changes that have been made are a direct response to some of the most strident attacks on this legislation that were made at the select committee and those came from the handful of fringe employers who do not value health and safety and who come from industries with some of the worst health and safety records. They came from the farming industry they came from the meat works industry and they came from the fishing industry. They all came along—those industries that kill or maim their workers far more than any other industry in the country—and they told us that we did not need to make these changes. The Government listened to them not to the workers and not to the mainstream employers who came and told us that this legislation was necessary that it was based on good evidence and that they had participated in the drafting of it and were pleased to see it coming before the House. No they are not the ones whom National listened to. National listened to the ratbags—the ones who do not care for their workers. In fact it came through clearly in the submissions that some of them have a very very low opinion of their workers. Some of them came along and told us that by having health and safety representatives their workforce would actively undermine the industry that they work in and would seek to destroy the businesses that they work for. Those are the people whom the National Government listened to on this legislation.What gives us most concern on this side of the House are the attacks on health and safety representatives. It is clear from international evidence that worker participation in health and safety matters is one of the most important factors in reducing death and injury in the workplace and the system that works the best is having elected health and safety representatives who are elected by their workmates who represent their workmates who receive training and who have the knowledge to ensure that the workforce has an ongoing relationship with the employer and has an ongoing say in the health and safety of that workplace. That is what works and that is what has been most stridently attacked by the changes put in place by the National Government MPs on the select committee.We have heard from the Government about its exclusion of small businesses from having health and safety reps—notwithstanding the fact that small businesses have a worse record of killing or maiming their workers than large businesses. Notwithstanding that we have heard from the Government that high-risk small businesses will still have to have health and safety reps. What the Minister cannot tell us is what a high-risk business will be and what a low-risk businesswill be. It is a bit like the Trans-Pacific Partnership where the Government is saying “Trust us. We’ll get this right.” Well the families of the Pike River 29 trusted the Government to get this legislation right. The families of the Pike River 29 trusted the Government members to listen to the recommendations of the royal commission and to implement them and the Government has failed to live up to the trust expected of them. So how can they expect us to trust them to get this right?Will farming be considered a high-risk business? Agriculture kills or maims more workers than any other industry in this country. Year after year after year it kills as many people as those who died in the Pike River disaster. It is our most dangerous industry and yet the Minister could not tell us in question time today whether or not farming will be considered as a high-risk industry. Well if that is not going to be considered as a high-risk industry how can we trust him to say that of any of the other high-risk industries: forestry fishing meat working? How can we trust this Government to actually get that regulation right and to ensure that people working in high-risk industries have the protections and the support that they need in order to improve that appalling record of deaths and injuries that we have in our workplaces?It is not just the exclusion of small businesses; the fact that employers can now structure their workplace to limit the influence of health and safety reps is another reason why we are opposing this legislation. What is most insidious is a last-minute change introduced by the National MPs in order to allow an employer to refer a health and safety representative to WorkSafe and to ask WorkSafe to remove that health and safety representative. That might not sound so bad on the surface of it but if WorkSafe actually says “No actually we think that health and safety representative is doing their job just fine.” then the employer can then take that decision to the District Court. We know what some of our worst employers are going to do—the ones that really hate workers having a say in their workplace; the ones that came to the select committee and told us that they hate workers having a say in their workplace. They will refer those health and safety representatives to WorkSafe and when WorkSafe says no—