Scott Alastair: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeScott Alastair: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 20 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:6057. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): We have had a lot of discussion over the last several hours on clause 65(3) as if it were the only clause in the bill. But what I would like to highlight is that this bill has clause 61 “Duty to engage with workers”. There is also an engagement required in clause 63 and in clause 64 a duty to have worker participation practices. So what I am saying is that this bill forces in fact persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) and workers to collaborate—to work together to engage to communicate. This is without clause 65(3).Su’a William Sio: It does not.ALASTAIR SCOTT: That is what it says. It “must”—there are words like “must” and “will”.Su’a William Sio: Show us.ALASTAIR SCOTT: If you can read it that is what it says.Su’a William Sio: Point it out.ALASTAIR SCOTT: “A PCBU must so far as is reasonably practicable engage with workers—”. That is all about collaboration and communication. It says in clause 64: “reasonable opportunities for workers who carry out work … [to undertake] on an ongoing basis.” It outlines the reasonable opportunities that allow workers to participate. So this is what has to happen. There is no option. The PCBU whether the business is Talley’s or whether it is a farmer and wife with one worker must discuss health and safety just like they talk about the finances of the company. They must turn their mind to health and safety in all aspects. So this is the attitudinal change that we are trying to put across with this bill.I can tell you that there are already companies doing it. This bill is catching up in fact with a lot of practice that is going on out there already. Whether they are large companies or even small companies they talk about health and safety. In my business they talk about health and safety all the time. It is important. It is important to workers and employers. So this bill is catching up in a lot of ways and it is also obviously leading the way for those businesses that do not participate—that do not engage with their workers.Clause 65(3) is really about practicality. As Minister Smith said earlier do you really expect a husband and wife team on a farm to have a rep? In reality they talk about health and safety in the morning around the tool box. That is what happens. That is reality. There is no reason to have another set of compliance rules another box to tick just for the sake of it. Reasonable and practical legislation should not put a burden on those small businesses. I am not talking about high-risk businesses; I am talking about small businesses because that is what we have spoken much about over the last few hours.So that is my point. I know we have been talking about clause 65(3) a lot but I would like to point out the main point and the first point in fact in Part 3 which is there is the duty—I repeat the duty; the obligation in fact—of the PCBU to engage with workers and to communicate to engage and to fulfil the duty that the PCBU has which is outlined in Part 2. There is a duty for the workers to engage as well to allow them to participate and fulfil their obligations as workers which is also outlined in Part 2. So this exception around fewer than 20 workers is really a way for larger businesses to manage their logistics if you like.The danger in having a rep across small businesses in my view is that other workers could become complacent. They could say: “Oh we’ve got a health and safety rep. We’re not going to consider health and safety. We’re not going to concern ourselves with the guy who doesn’t wear his safety boots. We’ll let the health and safety rep look after that.” But in a small business that is not what happens—that is not what happens. In a small business everyone knows everyone else. In a small business health and safety is at the top of their mind and that is the way it should be. As it stands clause 65(3) is practical and reasonable.