O'Connor Damien: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Health and Safety Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 August 2015. Volume:708;Page:6127. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): In going through the Health and Safety Reform Bill here we have got to the point where there is a clear philosophical difference between the National Government and what would be a Labour Government. It comes to a head when we are talking about incentives. At the top of the scale National has always believed that if you are earning a million dollars then you are incentivised to behave better by being offered a bonus of half a million dollars. “That’s only fair.” it says. But if you are a worker then you are incentivised by hearing: “Well you won’t lose your job or you won’t be injured and be satisfied with your incentive.” and that is effectively what we are doing here.I am going through the amendments to the Accident Compensation Act under clause 244 in Part 6. New section 174A in clause 244 says: “The Corporation may develop and establish … workplace incentive programmes …” which I guess will ultimately mean a possible reduction in the levies for employers and self-employed persons for the work account. So I ask: where is the incentive for the earners account?If we are to have workplace health and safety across the board if we are to change the culture and if we are to incentivise every New Zealander regardless of where they work or participate in the economy then everyone should be incentivised in the same way. So when the Minister as in new section 174C approves a certain workplace incentive programme does the Minister consider the fairness of the incentives and where they will fall? What is in it for the worker and the earners account to behave better by way of a fiscal initiative when we have got clear provisions and quite detailed incentives here and specifications around what can happen for the employers and self-employed persons?I am not saying that we should not have incentives and I am not denying the reality that fiscal incentives—a lower cost for example—do indeed drive better behaviour. That is the economic theory anyway. Always the economic theory run by this Tory Government is that if you offer money things will be better; take money away and things will be worse. But for the poor old worker the incentive is: “Well if you don’t work harder we’ll take all your money away.”If we are passing this legislation it is really important as I have said in almost every speech that every New Zealander regardless of their place in the system—whether they be a PCBU or a “b-o-s-s” or whether they be a worker who is someone who works for the PCBU or the “b-o-s-s” they both need the same incentives if we are to change the culture. So where is the incentive for the earners account? Where is the incentive for the workers so that they get more money if there is a better safety regime in their business or in their industry? Nowhere.I call on the Minister to offer an answer to that question because the specifications are not there. It is a reasonable explanation to say: “Well the worker will be safe. They won’t be killed. Isn’t that incentive enough?”. Well I tend to try to take a fairer more equitable more egalitarian approach to it and I say that I would like to have both the person conducting a business or undertaking—the PCBU or the “b-o-s-s”—and the worker incentivised by the same methods so that when the Minister approves the incentive programmes the benefits accrue to everyone in that business or that sector or that industry. So where are they? I leave that question with the Minister.I guess that if we go back to another point in new section 174B “Process to develop workplace incentive programme” there are a number of specifications here. It says “the extent to which the programme is likely to lead to reductions in the incidence severity and impact of work-related personal injuries” which is very sensible and “the extent to which the programme may affect the Work Account levies” and that is the fiscal incentive. Then it says “the expected administration costs of the programme;”—fair enough. Here is the other one. It is new section 174B(a)(iv) which says “the impact of the programme on the administration of the accident compensation scheme as a whole and on claims management processes;”.The question I have here is about ACC and I know that the most recent statements by the Government have been that it will not sell or dismantle ACC but I do not trust it. I think it has sold anything it could get its hands on and even the things it could not. So my question—long term—is what could be the possible implications of this if the Government were to sell ACC? Because when you go down to new section 174C—no no Mr Chair. Please let me explain—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are not debating asset sales or potential.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Minister’s approval of certain workplace incentive programmes depends upon a number of things. In new section 174C(2) it says “… the Minister may consider any relevant factors including—(a) the public interest;”. I think we understand what that is: a safer New Zealand. New section 174C(2)(b) adds “how the proposed workplace incentive programme aligns with the Government’s broader objectives;”. Well I do not agree with the Government’s broader objectives. I do not know what you think Mr Chairman. You are probably not allowed—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t bring me into it.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —to talk too much along those lines. I think people on this side of the Chamber—and I am keeping very strictly to the bill—do not agree with the Government’s broader objectives. So when the Minister has to consider that when he or she approves an incentive programme I cannot trust that it is being done for the right reasons.Can I go on to new section 174C(2)(c). It says that one of the factors that the Minister must consider is “the impact of the proposed workplace incentive programme on levy payers generally or on particular groups of levy payers;” which brings me right back around to the argument about the workers and the employers. If you were as I would say to you to have more consideration for the employer than the employee—and I know this Government has been very quick to beat up on the unions as though they are running a campaign against the Government. Well they are not. They are just simply running a campaign to defend the rights of their workers. The fact that the Government is at war with the unions is beside the point. The unions are just trying to defend the rights of workers and indeed in this case their safety. So when the Minister considers relevant factors if he or she was to consider the rights of the employers over the employees you know I do not think that would be right. I do not think we have got the balance right.So if we come back to the points I am raising here I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that the incentive programmes will deliver benefits to all in the same fiscal way—that is to the employer and the employee; to the PCBU or the “b-o-s-s” and to their worker—and then in considering the programmes will the Minister give us an assurance that the programmes will deliver equal benefits to both the PCBUs and to the employees?Hon Michael Woodhouse: This is not your best work Damien.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well the Minister may laugh but I have to say that I have been in this House long enough to dig a little deeper and to actually understand what National Governments do. If you would like me to read out some of the quotations from the 1992 passage—I was not quite here in 1992—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Keep it relevant.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —but the point is that we have an obligation to look ahead and take a longer-term projection of what every word in this legislation might mean for people because the cold hard reality is that we have got health and safety wrong. We kill too many people in this country. We injure too many.Although the Government committed post - Pike River to improvements we say that they have been watered down and this provision here talks of the incentives being driven by the fiscal incentives of the employers—we know that. We know that this is what it is aiming for but actually the underlying objective of the legislation should be effective—not balanced but effective—health and safety programmes. That is all I ask of the Minister and I am sure that he will be happy to get up and take a call and answer those things and try to give us a reassurance that the benefits to the PCBUs and the benefits—