Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19319] 
10.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: Has she received any reports on the application of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 in all companies operating in New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The Department of Labour provides reports and advice to me on the application of the Health and Safety in Employment Act on a range of issues relating to companies in New Zealand. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it acceptable to the Minister that a principal organisation such as Carter Holt Harvey for example who engages contractors for a specific task or project is exempt from occupational health and safety responsibilities and that all those responsibilities fall on the contractor? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is not correct to say that the company is exempt. For a prosecution to occur in New Zealand there has to be a natural person or a legal person in New Zealand who can be the focus of the prosecution. Where a company is not registered in New Zealand a prosecution could proceed against an individual working for that company in New Zealand but not the company itself. Of course there are also other actions that can be taken where work is not being undertaken in a safe environment including the issue of improvement notices and prohibition notices actually stopping the operation of the plant or factory. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister received any reports that would indicate how New Zealand workplace injury rates compare with Australian rates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I have received a copy of the sixth report to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council on comparative performance monitoring of the Australian and New Zealand occupational health and safety and workers compensation schemes. The report indicates that for the most recent figures available for the 2002-03 year the incident rate of injury and disease in New Zealand remains lower than the Australian average at 11.8 claims per 1000 employees compared with an average of 16.1 claims per 1000 employees across Australian states. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister answer this question specifically: is it acceptable that an Australian-based company that is operating here in charge of an operation and has a serious accident is to be exempt from our occupational safety and health legislation and will she tell the House categorically yes or no? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If I may repeat the answer I gave in the primary question that did categorically without any qualification answer the member’s question. Nobody is exempt from the health and safety in employment legislation. The ability to prosecute where a company is not registered in New Zealand is limited to an individual in New Zealand rather than the company itself. 
Peter Brown 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s response that an Australian-based organisation in charge of a group of people—and in this case a platform collapsed a man fell from it the platform hit another man and debris from that hit another man—is exempt from being held to account for such an accident and can I take it that that is what the Minister is telling me? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: For a prosecution to occur in New Zealand there has to be a natural person or a legal person in New Zealand who can be the focus of a prosecution. Where a company is not registered in New Zealand a prosecution can proceed against an individual working for that company in New Zealand but not against the company itself. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a letter that states that Carter Holt Harvey Ltd Riteway Rigging Ltd and Macarthur Engineering Pty failed to demonstrate acceptable levels of competence and good engineering practices. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.