Dyson Ruth: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 19 August 2015. Volume:707;Page:5985. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am—I suppose “pleased” is the wrong word given the gravity of the issues that we are discussing in this legislation but it is a good responsibility to be able to contribute to this debate on the Health and Safety Reform Bill. I was in the Chamber prior to the dinner adjournment and I want to make a couple of comments about the responses of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety which were commented on at the time by the presiding officer. I just say that even though I disagree with the Minister and where he and his caucus have got to on this I really appreciated the fact that he actually listened to the comments that members made and responded—not always in a way that we would agree with—as that is quite different from a number of his colleagues who are really dismissive and arrogant. I think it indicates a little bit of the respect that this issue deserves. I want to commend the Minister for that.I held the position of Minister of Labour for some time and I think it is one of the heaviest weights of responsibility when you think that laws that you are passing could determine whether a person who goes to work in the morning comes home safely or is never seen alive again. That is a huge responsibility and one that this Parliament should and I hope will over the coming hours of debate on this legislation really put an effort into.I am really saddened that the internal debate in the National caucus has left us in the position that we have particularly concerning the relevant portions of Part 2. From my perspective there are a lot of things that we could disagree on but if we talk about international best practice and how we might actually make people safe at work regardless of how big their workplace is or what sort of industry it is I would really have assumed that this might be an issue that the whole of Parliament could agree on. But it is really—not entirely but in some substantial part—the issues that are raised in Part 2 that have contributed to what seems to have been a pretty fractious discussion in the National caucus and we have ended up with a really watered-down version of what was originally intended by the previous Minister the Hon Simon Bridges.Before I return to the specific provisions in Part 2 I just want to acknowledge a friend—a man I admired greatly—who was a member of the Lyttelton fire brigade and a maritime worker who was killed in Lyttelton Port of Christchurch not very long ago. The court case in relation to his death has recently been heard and Lyttelton Port Co. pleaded guilty to causing his death. There is no celebration in that. I think it made the process easier for the family; it certainly made it easier for his workmates to find out what had happened so that we can all learn from it so it never happens again. But nothing will take away the fact that our community particularly the strong Lyttelton community does not have the joy of Brad Fletcher being part of that community any more. So I want to pay tribute to him and the work that he did on the waterfront and I hope that nobody else ever dies in our port.The five subparts in Part 2 really go to the heart of the thinking about how much responsibility should be carried by one individual and how much should be shared if there are different employers. Lyttelton Port is a good example actually. You have the port company but there are lots of contractors working there lots of different arrangements and obviously ships coming in from overseas. There is a mire of responsibilities that you could allocate depending on the activity of the person. That is what this part seeks to do. I did not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee tragically but I have looked at a number of the provisions. For example there is the duty of person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU)—new language we have in New Zealand now as a result of this bill—who manages or controls the workplace where you have more than one obvious employer. This is not a standard workplace but one where you have got more than one PCBU. In clause 32(2)(a) and (b) there is a note that talks about the comparison with the Model Work Health and Safety Act in Australia.I am really keen to learn—this is the only chance we will have during the Committee stage—from members who were on the select committee or from the Minister how our workplaces compare with Australia. I know for example that we have far more small workplaces small businesses in New Zealand than they do in Australia but I am not sure whether they have the same comparability where we have more than one employer on a worksite and whether this actually works. For me the last thing I want to see this legislation do—and I am anxious about it because it has got new terminology it has got shared responsibilities and it has got I think an onus of proof that will tend some towards litigation rather than taking responsibility. That is the last environment that we should be creating if our aim is to make our workplaces safe.What we should be doing in attempting to make our workplaces safe is ask how we get everyone on the same page. How do we ensure that the worker on their first day through to the person who has been there for 50 years and about to get a gold watch and any person who is in a responsible position—whether it is a manager or the boss; the owner company director is not risk averse? To not say “I do not want to end up in court or with a big bill for something.” but to say: “We will create a culture where people work in a collaborative way and a positive way to create an environment that is safe for everyone.”? This is not about doing people over. This is not about catching people out. This is an open culture. The Minister should understand this actually because he used to be in the health system. It is very comparable.In my view the sort of culture that you need to create is one where people put their hands up early to a mistake or a risk and say: “I have seen this. It should not be happening. We want to make sure it does not happen in the future.” How do you create that culture in every workplace? I do not know how this does it. I would love to think it does but it seems to me that what we have done is create a new regime of classification—a PCBU. It does not even spell a word. What public servant was on that task? But seriously it is a new regime that will render comparable previous court cases and policy decisions unable to be used.As I said at the outset I am really sad that it has come to the point where we have not got the whole of Parliament singing from the same song sheet and setting out what I think New Zealanders want us to do which is to take the lessons that we have so tragically learnt—and not just from Pike River but gosh that had to be such a blot on our thinking about the way we make our workplaces safe. If that did not make us sit up and say that we have to do things better then I am sure that nothing would. We have a terrible record in terms of workplace safety and health in New Zealand and I am not sure that we have got our heads around getting it right.There are five subparts in Part 2. One is headed “Key principles relating to duties”. The second one which I referred to earlier is “Duties of PCBUs”. One is “Duties of officers workers and other persons” one is “Offences relating to duties” and the last is “Duties to preserve sites and notify notifiable events”. Because this part introduces so many new things to our health and safety regime it is for me one of the most important even though it might not have policy issues as substantial as those contained in other parts of the legislation. I have not even got on to the later stages yet but I know that colleagues are keen to take calls. So if I do not get another call I will try and take another one later.I am interested in the final five clauses Part 2—these go over two subparts—under the subheading “Other matters relating to offences”. Those clauses are headed: “Actions taken to prevent harm”; “Proof of intention not required for certain offences”; as I said earlier “Duty to preserve sites”; “Duty to notify notifiable event”; and “Requirement to keep records”. For me these all sound like new provisions and new standards which we are expecting the workforce to understand and expecting employers to understand that will set a new regime in the offences and legislation.