Dean Jacqui; Halbert Shanan; Bayly Andrew; Wood MichaelHEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (HEALTH AND SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES AND COMMITTEES) AMENDMENT BILLParts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Good to see the Minister of Agriculture in the chair although a bit like me I presume he hasn't had a lot to do with this particular piece of legislation.Hon Damien O'Connor: Not this particular piece.ANDREW BAYLY: Not this particular—I know he's very knowledgeable about many things but maybe not about the Health and Safety at Work Act.So first question: in replacement section 62 inserted by clause 4 why is it considered that in a very small organisation that may have only two employees or in fact only one—technically one—employee why was it deemed sufficient that if that single worker believes that there should be an election of a health and safety representative that process must occur? What was the rationale? I also understand that the issue around the riskiness of the business has been done away with so why was it deemed that one person should be sufficient? I'm glad to see the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has just turned up and hopefully can illuminate.I'm just going to give the Minister a moment to sit down. So maybe I'll just repeat my question. So just a bit of background Minister while we start this bill. I just want to understand why the Minister thought fit and it certainly is not the unanimous view of the Education and Workforce Committee that if you had a business with in fact only one employee—because technically I think that would be the case that could occur under the situation under replacement section 62 or even a business of two employees. Why the Minister thought it was appropriate that that single person could request—and I take the wording request" which means "compulsory"—to form or establish a health and safety representative immediately or as soon as practicable. What was the rationale behind that?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): A couple of comments to the member's question for which I thank him. The first that I think it's important to note is that this is not a compulsory system. It will not be the case that once this bill comes into force that every workplace with 20 or fewer employees will have to have a system of a health and safety representative or a health and safety committee. But if workers in that workplace request for there to be one then that would be the outcome. What is the reason for that? The reason for that is twofold effectively. One is that it is the workers themselves who face the risk of health and safety harm in their workplaces and are therefore the ones who are in a good position to judge whether there is a benefit in there being a formal system of a representative or a health and safety committee.Secondly the overwhelming body of evidence both within New Zealand and internationally shows that when there is a high level of worker participation through a formal representative system we reduce rates of harm."