Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT for the final reading of yet another inane and unnecessary bill from a Government bereft of any business understanding the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. The idea that businesses of under 20 staff need the Government to make them be responsible is an insult to all employers and shows a patronising contempt for employees. The metaphor of flogging a dead horse is very appropriate: a waste of energy on a lost cause or a situation that cannot be changed because I know this is going to go through very shortly. The more we talk about the bill—the sheer ridiculousness of it of why we're bothering with it why this Government thought it so important in a time where businesses are struggling to survive pay wages and all the other costs that this Government has imposed on them—it's mind boggling. The fact is that they just don't get it.With typical arrogance if you dare to disagree you obviously don't care about workers and are really just a horrible person. We've heard that once tonight at least and well at the last reading the Greens said They"—that's ACT and National—"are happy and willing to accept that number of people not coming home from work that number of families who lose a member close to them. That is what they are accepting when they stand up in this House and say 'Everything is fine.'" Yep so anyone who doesn't agree with the method of improving safety anyone who doesn't agree with what they say is a horrible person. It's just totally lacking common sense.All new regulation should be able to be justified under certain criteria and they need to pass the test of three basic questions. Number one: what are the problems the bill seeks to solve and will this bill solve them? The answer is no it won't. As the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) in their excellent fact-filled submission said there is no evidence of a problem at all. Small businesses are already doing it. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 employers must have records for all work-related accidents and take reasonable steps to resolve the cause for the future. How mature. The second thing is: what are the costs of the scheme proposed and do the potential benefits outweigh them? Answer? Short answer: no. Long answer: definitely not; 210000 training days trying to get relief workers special meetings—all stuff that is done already over a cup of tea and a biscuit. Number three: who will bear the costs and are they fairly shared? Guess who bears the cost—all of the costs?To continue the animal metaphor this bill is a dog's breakfast a poor piece of work and it's a mess. Minister Wood's inability to answer basic questions about the bill in the committee of the whole House made it obvious that the bill hasn't been well-thought-out and is a response to appease his union mates who have a disdain for employers and anyone successful. Increased membership is their only concern; disrupting happy productive workplaces just collateral damage.In the committee of the whole House I asked the Minister whether those people who own their businesses but pay themselves wages and work alongside other employees—maybe in a three- four- or five-person cafe—can be health and safety representatives. Due to the fluid nature of their employees it just makes sense. I still don't know the answer—I asked three times; I don't know. His answer was actually "Again this is a situation"—this is Minister Wood—"where I think members are trying to find enormously unlikely examples to try and discredit a bill where it is highly unlikely this will occur. I suppose it is the case that if an employer who is working in the workplace in an onanistic fit of health and safety fervour decided he wanted to be a representative to himself then he might determine to do that." I must admit I had to look up the word "onanistic" and I urge members to do the same. It's "O-N-A-N-I-S-T-I-C". While I don't think the term is relevant to this debate it's very appropriate in other ways.The number of businesses with five or fewer employees is huge: 102000 employees in businesses of one to five; 43000 of employees in numbers of six to nine. The fact that the Minister doesn't think that this could become an issue just astounds me. An ex - Labour voter said to me just at the weekend "I've always voted Labour but never again. They used to care about the worker but their ideology has changed them."The submissions opposed to this bill such as the EMA and the Motor Trade Association explained the facts. They weren't full of the emotive comments and unsubstantiated claims that a divisive subject often brings but divisiveness has been a hallmark of this Government and it's something they'll be remembered for long after 14 October. You name it: farmers townies landlords tenants women men—many other examples that I can save for another day. This one: employees against employers and it really is so unnecessary.This bill is yet another example of a Government trying to appear as if they care looking after their union mates once again hammering businesses with silly regulation and not doing a thing to help the workers they purport to care so much about. ACT opposes this bill."