Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: I present to the House a legislative statement on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move, That the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

This Government is committed to tackling New Zealand’s poor record of workplace injuries to ensure that everyone comes home from work healthy and safe. Today, I can confirm that this Government intends to deliver on our 2020 election promise to improve the health and safety of all workers by strengthening the role of worker participation and representation.

International evidence shows that worker participation is a vital part of the system which prevents work-related harm. The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 requires businesses to engage with workers and to have effective worker participation practices. The Act provides for health and safety representatives and committees as formal mechanisms for worker participation and representation if these are what workers prefer.

Health and safety representatives play important roles in the workplace, acting as the conduit between the front line and management to help drive changes in the workplace that benefit everyone. Health and safety committees also play an important role in bringing together workers and management to work on health and safety issues, policies, and procedures. They ensure that workers have a say in how they are best protected against risks in the workplace. However, the Act currently limits worker access to health and safety representatives and to health and safety committees, reducing flexibility and worker choice. This Government believes that all workers have the right to access health and safety representatives and committees if that is their preferred means of participation and representation, and who is better placed to identify health and safety risks than the ones most affected by them?

I’d like to acknowledge the tragedy that brought about some major reforms in the health and safety at work system: the 29 Pike River miners who lost their lives on that day back in 2010. This tragedy led to the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety, and a blueprint for health and safety, developed by the Government. These responses formed the foundation of the Health and Safety Reform Bill back in 2014.

When introduced, the bill provided for strong worker participation in health and safety issues. Consistent with the Australian model work health and safety law, on which the bill was based, the bill provided that all businesses must hold a health and safety representative election if requested by a worker. It also provided that all businesses must establish a health and safety committee if requested to by a health and safety representative or by five or more workers.

At the select committee in 2014-15, some submitters raised concerns that these provisions would be too costly for small businesses. It appears that many believed that health and safety representatives and committees would be mandatory, which they were not. In response, in 2015, the National Government brought in limits to these worker participation provisions, meaning that a business could decline a health and safety representative election request from its workers if the business had fewer than 20 workers and was not within a prescribed high-risk sector. These small and lower-risk businesses also did not need to decide on a request to establish a health and safety committee, whereas larger businesses and those in a designated high-risk sector had to grant these requests. Any business could decline a request for a health and safety committee if satisfied that existing practices sufficiently met requirements. These limits accentuated the unequal power dynamic between workers and businesses.

This bill seeks to remove these limits and to restore the provisions to what they were in the Health and Safety Reform Bill as introduced to this House. The bill applies the same rules to all businesses and guarantees the same rights to all workers to be able to decide what kind of worker participation mechanism best meets their needs.

This bill requires that all businesses must initiate a health and safety representative election if requested by a worker in the business. It does this by removing the limits on workers’ access to health and safety representatives in small, lower-risk businesses, but it does not make health and safety representatives mandatory. Businesses only need to initiate an election if a worker requests it. If businesses have good health and safety systems already in place and strong engagement practices, workers might not seek to elect health and safety representatives.

The Australian experience of small businesses rarely having health and safety representatives suggests that these workers often do not see health and safety representatives as the most effective mechanism to address health and safety matters in their workplace. However, it is still important that this choice sits with the workers.

The bill also removes the limits from health and safety committees, as to do otherwise would bias against this form of worker representation compared to health and safety representatives. This means that all businesses must establish a committee, if requested by a health and safety representative, of five or more workers. Again, this bill does not make health and safety committees mandatory. Businesses only need to establish a committee if requested by a health and safety representative or by five or more workers. This bill also removes the ability of a business to refuse a request to establish a health and safety committee if the business believes the existing practices sufficiently meet the requirement for worker participation.

As well as limiting worker choice, the existing provisions are not well targeted to ensure that workers in high-risk industries can access health and safety representatives and committees. The limits rely in part on designating what is a high-risk industry, but it is difficult to effectively decide what is a high-risk industry due to limits on the available data, especially about health risks to workers. This means that the designated high-risk industries do not necessarily capture all the sectors that may be at high risk.

The bill removes the need for these designations and revokes the regulation-making power which enables regulations to be made that designate high-risk industries. It also revokes the parts of the worker engagement participation and representation regulations which relate to high-risk industries.

This bill also makes it clear for businesses that they need to establish health and safety committees as soon as practicable after receiving a request addressing a current gap in the Act. This is consistent with the approach to time lines elsewhere in the Act and it reflects the Act’s focus on flexibility according to the circumstances.

Approximately 2.3 million employees are currently impacted by the ability of any business to decline a request to form a health and safety committee if the business is satisfied that existing practices sufficiently meet requirements. Additionally, approximately half a million employees in small, lower-risk businesses currently have their choices limited by the business’s ability to decline their request for a health and safety representative election. This bill increases the choices for all of these workers. How many of these workers take up the opportunity to elect health and safety representatives or to establish committees will depend on worker preferences. These may be influenced by their relationships with the business owner—who they work alongside in the business—and their awareness of health and safety representatives and committees, and the extent to which they feel their needs are met through informal worker participation means. This bill helps to address, as I’ve previously stated, the underlying unequal power dynamic between the workers and businesses.

In summary, this bill makes important changes to improve worker representation on health and safety issues by requiring that all businesses must initiate a health and safety representative election if requested by a worker; second, requiring that all businesses must establish a health and safety committee if requested by a health and safety representative or five or more workers; third, by providing that a health and safety committee must be established as soon as practicable after a business receives a request; and—finally—four, removing provisions related to defining high-risk sectors. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, thank you; it’s an important debate to speak in. The National Party stands with most other parties in this Parliament, believing we need good, robust legislation frameworks to provide protection for workers so that when somebody is in the workplace they are safe. Indeed, the Minister spoke about the tragedy at Pike River. Anything and everything that can be done that will make sure in similar circumstances workers are safe, and their families know that those workers will return home to them, is worthwhile considering and worthy of this House doing. But at the same time, we need to balance out the intention to provide a framework for safe workplaces with actually where there is risk and where best Parliament should focus those rules and regulations.

We want to raise the point around small businesses and the great challenge so many of them have when it comes to additional regulation and the cost that comes with that. In my electorate, there are businesses, large and small, that are both within the category of the existing legislation of a high-risk industry or sector and there are businesses, large and small, that are not high risk, where in fact there is little, if any, risk in that workplace. And every business I think that I speak to, every good business owner, is happy to take on responsibility and the cost of regulation where it makes sense and it is proven there is an issue or a problem and will address that properly and fairly and in a balanced way.

When we were in Government, as the Minister said, the legislation was passed, but we did listen during the committee processes, which is why Parliament doesn’t just rush legislation all the way through in urgency in all readings all of the time.

I note that this is going off to select committee, but the point I’m making is that the select committee process is where the public or those with interest on both sides of a piece of legislation are able to submit and be considered by the committee and then by the Government and where needed, where practicable—as the Minister has used that term a number of times—changes are made to the legislation to make it better, to make it more focused, to make it fairer, or to allow it to achieve the outcome it intends to—to focus on where there is risk and harm as opposed to imposing cost and obligation where there isn’t risk or harm. That’s the reason that legislation was changed to exempt small businesses of 20 employees or less, of which we have a great number in New Zealand, and to focus on the larger companies. But where a small business was in an area of high risk as described by the legislation, or later by regulation, that small business would also have the obligation.

The Government hasn’t gone to seek the position of small businesses in New Zealand on this legislation, to talk to those that aren’t currently covered by the legislation because they may have five workers only—not 25, 21, because they would be captured irrespective of their sector—and who are not in a high-risk area, to see whether or not they think this is reasonable; is there is a better way to ensure that workers have a say around health and safety, or is this legislation necessary? And if those small businesses say there is a gap here, in as far as health and safety is concerned for small businesses, we accept that. It’s disappointing the Government hasn’t done that.

I accept that was a Labour Party manifesto pledge before the election. We’re going to see next year: the Labour Party, along with some other parties, will promise all sorts of things if they think it will get them votes. But the problem that we have here is they didn’t go and talk to the small business community and, therefore, they are saying “We’re assuming there’s a risk and we’re going to cover small businesses with that, even though there is no evidence that there is additional risk or that the current system is not working.”

And here is the challenge with that: with regulation, with committees, with all sorts of things like that comes cost, and for some small businesses that is a great cost. But putting aside the amount of that cost, businesses often now are having to pass these costs on. And so the very people that the Government is saying they are trying to protect in the workforce, who are also consumers themselves, are going to find—in many cases where small businesses who currently are not captured by this legislation, because they are low risk and there is no evidence that the workers don’t have a say and are not safe in the workplace—that they are going to have to pass that cost on through price increases to the consumer. And the outcome will be that costs go up.

As we’ve seen so many times with this Government, the well-meaning decisions that they make actually don’t achieve the things that they hope to. It very much can be a very broad approach to these things, as opposed to focusing on where the harm is and dealing with it. And with that cost passed on to consumers, the consumer is worse off without any actual real gain when it comes to health and safety.

I want to give two examples, in the time I have left. One is around a—well, let’s use the example of the Minister. A small mining company with five employees is already covered by this legislation because they are in a high-risk area. But if we take a small business on the high street that’s retail that opens from nine in the morning to five in the afternoon, and actually they sell clothes—they’re not covered because they’re low risk, although there could be training and there could be all sorts of things going on. If one of those people that works there requests it, the Minister says it’s not an obligation, it’s not mandatory, but if one worker requests it, it must happen.

And I ask the question of the Minister: in as far as health and safety is concerned, where is the evidence of the risk in the small business with five retail employees? And why is this necessary? Other than the Minister saying she wants every worker to have a say, where is the evidence that there is harm being done or actually there is risk there? And why does it need to be addressed? And if the Minister has that evidence, then actually that’s different, but it hasn’t been presented. It is actually just “We said we will do this, so we’re going to and it doesn’t matter what the cost is.”

The Minister said it’s not mandatory, but if one worker says they want it, a committee has to be set up, and that committee of the five people might only be the five employees in that business—if they say they also want these things, they have to do it. The business then mandatorily must go and train somebody in a business of five people. If after that training, that person leaves to go, I don’t know, to another workplace that actually has more than 20 employees, they would be covered by this legislation but the business has to train somebody else because the law requires them to. And if they don’t, there is a cost to them because they are breaking the law.

Therein lies the challenge of this. There will be cost to small businesses where there isn’t risk identified and this legislation isn’t necessary because there isn’t a problem with health and safety, but it doesn’t do anything for the businesses where anything additional for the businesses that are high risk—because high-risk businesses are already covered by the legislation irrespective of their size. And so there’s cost without any additional benefit for health and safety, with the exception of the Minister saying they said they would do it so they have.

Here’s an example of how this doesn’t work in this House. There was a member of Parliament not so long ago in the Labour Party who raised issues that could go to health and safety, because he believed he was being bullied and he believed that he was not in a good place. He asked for a committee to be set up. He asked for a representative to support him. What did they do? There was more than 20 of them. They chucked him out and now they’re running in a by-election. So, Minister, on the one side, you’re going to burden small businesses of five people or more, but actually, when it comes to health and safety so close to you and others—yeah, turn all your heads away—actually, I can see why you wanted to get rid of Mr Sharma. He’s very effective on the campaign trail of holding the Government to account, but he was not—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, you laugh, but he was the only one out there saying, along with the National Party candidate Tama Poaka, that there was—

Hon Members: Tama what—who?

Hon TODD McCLAY: —Potaka—a great problem with crime there. The Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, on one of the few times she was back in New Zealand from her trips overseas, says “Yes, we are a little bit worried about all of this sort of thing, but what are we going to do?” But the point here is when it is close to home, they turn a blind eye, but when it comes to burdening small businesses without any additional gain at all, they’re actually going ahead with that.

We will be responsibly working through this at the committee stage to try to improve the legislation to make sure there isn’t burden upon small business, but at the same time, there is an additional cost. But at the moment, we can’t support this legislation because it doesn’t deliver anything for health and safety that’s not already there.

Marja Lubeck: Mr Speaker?

Yeah, before I call you, let’s keep the by-election campaigning out of this debate.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I had no intention of bringing that up at all. But I want to say: what a rubbish speech from the previous speaker, the Hon Todd McClay, who is trying to lecture this Government on health and safety. Now, let’s remember that this member was very likely a part of a Government in 2015 that classified worm farming as dangerous, but not dairy farming. So this is an Opposition that is trying to tell us about health and safety when they, in fact, caused all of those issues. So I’m actually really privileged and honoured to be rising in support of the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill at this first reading. I’m also looking forward to this bill coming to our select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, and hearing these submissions on that.

Health and safety outcomes, as we heard from the Minister, have improved since the regulatory changes and establishment of WorkSafe after, of course, the Pike River mine disaster. But New Zealand still has a high rate of work-related harm in comparison to other countries. Now, I did that hear that member the Hon Todd McClay make a statement once, I think, of wanting people to be safe, but that’s all I heard in that speech. I did, however, hear, at least 25 times, the word “cost” mentioned, so that is very clearly where the National Party has its priorities. The member Todd McClay said that if there is an issue or a problem, we should deal with it. Well, Mr McClay, people still get injured and die at work. Last year, there was a fatal work-related injury claim in New Zealand of 54. Our rates of fatalities, in fact, per hundred thousand workers, are roughly double those of Australia and are four times what the UK has.

So it’s an absolute privilege to take a short call on this bill. I’m looking forward, as I said, to hearing the submissions on this, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Well, here we go again—the Labour Government heaping more regulatory pain on our small-business people who are trying to get back on their feet. And they are so keen to do it that they will get it started under urgency. Of course we all must do everything we can to ensure that workers are safe in their workplace. Sadly, this Government did not even bother to go out and consult with the small businesses to see what they were doing. If they had done that, they might have found that they were effectively and informally—as you would be, in a small family environment—looking after each other. But, no, this Government has to impose regulation on them.

I read recently that most small-business owners do not expect to be taking any time off over Christmas. They don’t have enough workers to do it, they’re so busy, and they won’t get any time off with their family. Can I just compare that with our members of Parliament on the other side. Recently, in a select committee, we were looking at dates to hear submissions on a particular bill, and I said, “Well, let’s do it at the end of January. We can have those submissions at the end of January—” Oh, no, they couldn’t do that.

Marja Lubeck: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that the member’s referring to discussions at select committee that happened in a private session, not a public session.

SPEAKER: Well, is that correct?

PENNY SIMMONDS: Sorry, Mr Speaker, do you want me to sit down? It was just a time in the select committee when we were trying to decide on submission hearing dates.

SPEAKER: Well, just avoid discussing things that are not yet public.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My only reason for bringing it up was to compare that MPs seem to be intent on ensuring that they have a good two months off—

Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the incident that the member is referring to occurred during a private session of a select committee—in the most recent sentence she’s uttered.

SPEAKER: Thank you. If that is correct, as I warned the member before, and if it happens again, I will consider terminating the member’s speech.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m merely wanting to point out—

SPEAKER: No, no, no. Don’t even refer to it. Just move on.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Right. I won’t refer to it. I will refer to our poor, hard-working small businesses that are getting no time off over Christmas. They certainly aren’t getting two months off over Christmas, and yet this Government is keen to put more regulatory compliance on them. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill.

This is an important bill, which enacts a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party prior to the last election. It looks at the gap that we have currently in our law which means that if you are not high-risk or a small workplace, then, even if the workforce desires to have a health and safety representative, the person or business running that business can refuse that request.

This bill fills that gap. We will have a select committee process on this, where any concerns that the public or other members of the House have can be fully traversed. I look forward to it, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel like I got lucky: I get to speak to two bills in a row that the Greens are supporting and that I’m really pleased to see in this House. The Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill indeed is a Labour Party manifesto commitment being delivered on. This has been a longstanding commitment from the Greens as well. I note my dear previous colleague Denise Roche’s speech from the third reading on the Health and Safety at Work Bill, noting that the main gap in that bill is that, of course, it applies to some people but not others, to some businesses and not to others. People who work for small businesses with fewer than 20 workers do not have the right to elect a health and safety representative, let alone a health and safety committee.

I want to just respond to—or to give some context, as well, that in New Zealand, our health and safety record as a country is very poor compared to countries we like to compare ourselves to. If we look at 2021, there were 65 people who were killed at work in this country. If we look at the most recent data, just in June there were two people a week who were killed at work. We have a problem as a country, and that was after the health and safety work legislation was introduced—we’re still having two people a week, just as recently as June, who did not come home from work. There has been a reduction in fatalities since the introduction, or creation, of WorkSafe, but we know that we have actually made even less progress around serious injuries in our workplaces.

I hear from the previous National speaker that, actually, you know, this bill just enables workers in small businesses to request a health and safety rep if they see a need for it. I really want to get into that a little bit, because what we heard from the National Party was that, actually, this is overkill; there are industries with little risk, which is telling us that at a national perspective, we can work out whether there is risk in any business within an entire sector. The example that was used previously by Todd McClay of a retail business with five people—like, why would they need a health and safety rep? I just want to bring up, like, one potential health and safety risk, which may be actually of people coming in and—knife attacks, potentially, where there may be in their particular area, their small business, somebody who may be experiencing violence and they’re not sure that their business owner is taking it seriously, so they want to set up a system to be able to have the conversation to make sure that there’s an appropriate response. I’m hearing people saying “shame” to me. I’m like, this is the reality, and to suggest that you can blanketly decide what risk is across an entire industry and you know better than the workers in a workplace is just, frankly, ridiculous.

I want to also acknowledge that the high-risk industries where that is able to happen at the moment in small businesses have some overlap with industries where there are high levels of death, but it’s not a complete overlap. The industries that have the highest levels of death are transport—that is not in the high-risk industry list at the moment that was decided. Health is the fifth most likely and is also not on that list. It is really important, if we are to get on top of the harm that is happening in our workplaces, and all forms of harm—all of the evidence tells us that the voice of the workers is critically important in being able to get solutions to keep people safe. This is about enabling that voice.

I want to give another example of why this is important in getting rid of the arbitrary number threshold, the number of employees. There was a really great piece of research done by E tū, authored by Tom Carlyle, around eliminating psychosocial harm in the cleaning and security industry, probably industries that, blanketly, the National Party would assume were safe and low risk, but actually what they’ve found is that employers—and I would say this is possibly a manipulation of the law, but where security guards had concerns around their health and safety and they were wanting a rep but their employers were saying, “Oh, there aren’t 20 people on this site; there are only five people on this site, so, sorry, no—you’re not allowed to have a health and safety rep.”, even though that company was employing a hundred security guards. But they were going by, “Oh, there are not more than five at this site, so, no, you’re not entitled to a voice. We do not need to listen to your concerns.” That is really problematic. We know that in terms of psychosocial harm, which can have a longer-term impact and take people away from being able to be in paid work for longer than even physical injuries, that is most likely to occur in businesses that are not typically associated with a high risk profile, and that is where that worker voice can make the most difference.

So we are very pleased in the Greens to see this bill come in. It is really an important step. I still would say that the example we’ve had from Australia around small businesses, that it’s quite rare for them to actually have health and safety reps, is—actually, I’m not sure that’s a good sign or something to be encouraging us around “Don’t worry if you’re reverting to thinking of costs in the first instance as opposed to benefits, that they’re not going to be so great.” because Australia hasn’t really realised that. I have a concern that, sometimes, it’s because actually, without a union in the workplace, without the conversations about, actually, your rights as a person at work, about that sense of collective value as well as looking after each other, which is what comes with joining and being in the union, a sense of, actually, responsibility to each other and having other people be watching out for you—without that, actually, the thought of being able to request a role of having a health and safety rep and a committee might actually not be something that people jump to, because so many people feel as if they’re just fighting this stuff by themselves and just have to put up with whatever is done to them or whatever their workplace throws at them, and then they just look for another job if they’ve got enough of that mobility.

So I do believe that default—and do not read that as compulsory, even though I’m not going to be backing down from speaking to the value of unions, because all of the evidence tells us that they are essential in terms of reducing inequality as well as improving safety in workplaces—union membership alongside this provision would actually help create the environment where more working people were able to have a sense of speaking up and requesting these health and safety reps to make their workplaces as productive and as safe as possible. People at the moment are being killed, they are being physically injured, and they are being harmed while they produce value for another person or business, and that is just not right. You should be able to work and contribute and come home feeling more fulfilled at the end of the day.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. This bill is yet another example of a solution looking for a problem, and ACT certainly won’t be supporting it.

We see it, actually, as another cynical use of urgency to try and push this through the first reading. It makes you wonder—Michael Wood must have a lot of spare time on his hands, constantly thinking “How can I shaft businesses more, and how can I look good in front of my union mates a bit more?”, because it just seems that every single thing that this Government puts through is anti-business. Yet again, there’s no consideration of the imposition on businesses. The lack of facts that this is actually needed just aren’t there, and his inability to acknowledge that productivity should be the major consideration in any legislation. Probably the most important—and expected—is the complete lack of understanding of what really goes on in most businesses in New Zealand, and I think the speech that he wrote for Minister Allan today indicated that.

Health and safety, just like training—welfare for staff is at the forefront of all business owners’ minds. Contrary to the belief of the Greens to my left, and Labour—employers are good people, they care about their employees. It’s their conditions, it’s their pay, their welfare, and their future. The way the left think only makes you think how awful they’d be if they ever took the plunge and became an employer.

This bill makes a couple of pretty insignificant changes that really won’t have any effect on how business is run, except to cause more headaches and embolden union-minded employees. Jan Logie referred before that there should be “collegiality with all the unions from the workers”—they don’t actually need it. They’ve got collegiality with the business; the business who is paying them: that’s who their loyalty should be towards.

But most employers, in fact most of the employees that I speak to, think that section 45 of the Health and Safety at Work Act is the most important, and I’ll just read it. It’s entitled—and close your ears if you don’t like it—“Duties of workers”: “While at work, a worker must (a) take reasonable care for his or her own health and safety … (b) take reasonable care that his or her acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of other persons, and (c) comply with any reasonable instruction to comply with this Act … and (d) co-operate with any reasonable policy or procedure relating to health and safety at the workplace …” It relates to personal responsibility; quite a novel expectation—it’s sometimes called the “common sense clause”. I understand that you guys don’t really get that, unfortunately.

I just heard an example before of an employee in a supermarket, in the butchery section, who was working a slicer, slicing ham. On his own volition, he took the safety guard off; he decided that he was invincible. He didn’t have gloves on and sliced the top of his finger off. He got a $40,000 payout—suppose that’s OK.

We’re systematically trying to dumb down our workforce to ensure that it becomes completely dependent on the unions—and that’s why we need unions, obviously. Everything the Government does—pay rates, holidays, sick leave—they’ll tell you the only way, and we heard it just before, the only way to improve it is through unions. They don’t think that workers are competent enough to negotiate their own contracts, pay, hours, or conditions. It’s just so patronising; people don’t need babysitting.

This bill is a perfect example of bureaucracy and virtue signalling, and we’ve heard that all week. We’ve heard from the grocery commission; we’ve got a grocery commission—and the supermarkets is an interesting one. During the debate on the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, that other silly bill, I heard my colleague from Nelson, Rachel Boyack, talk about how fantastic Countdown were, because they were paying their staff well above the minimum wage—and that’s because they made a profit; they make a profit. But now we have the Labour Government come in and say, “It’s too much of a profit. So we’ll just cut that down a bit.” And this is from the Government that let the supermarkets open throughout COVID. Oh, and we’ve got the petrol police as well, and it’s just nuts, and we got the Plain Language Bill. This bill is just like the Plain Language Bill; it’s not enforceable, it won’t be enforced—there are no penalties, it’s just a silly bill, and ACT definitely opposes it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will take a short call on the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill. Chris, I taught you better than that! Yet again, Labour and Minister Wood are delivering for working people. This bill is yet another 2020 manifesto commitment being delivered by the Labour Government. It is going to improve health and safety outcomes for all New Zealanders at their workplaces. I commend the bill to the House.

This is a split call. Chris Penk—five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I can assure you it won’t be five minutes’ worth of discussion.

First of all, there’s a lot of red herrings. We’re talking about a regime that’s separate to the high-risk sectors. We’ve heard about Pike River and the tragedy there. With all due respect, that is a high-risk sector: confined spaces. Retail is another high-risk sector under the policies of this Government.

Number two, I don’t want to hear any more victim-blaming nonsense, such we’ve heard from the Green Party contributor, who suggested that bosses were somehow responsible for not responding well enough to violent crime. You know whose responsibility that is: the Government.

Number three and final, this is not a serious attempt at lawmaking. It wouldn’t have been introduced under urgency as one of literally dozens—I understand 24 separate bills we’ve been discussing, that’s dozens. It looks to me like the attempt to put in a bullet point in a campaign brochure for the Labour Party. We’re treating it about as seriously as that deserves. We do not support this bill.

Mr Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a short call on this bill, the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill, and I just want to note that, prior to entering Parliament, I worked in the health and safety field for nearly 10 years, on behalf of employees and employers. Prior to entering Parliament, I was a health and safety coordinator for the Anglican Diocese of Nelson. On the surface, our organisation could have been deemed low risk; however, we had a workplace death on our watch—on a forestry block—which led to the creation of my role, and we took our responsibilities as an employer very, very seriously.

In my view, there is no cost that can be placed on a worker’s life. What the evidence shows—as well as working in health and safety, I studied health and safety at Auckland University—and what I can tell you is that the research shows very clearly that when there is genuine worker participation, not tick-box exercises, not the rules and regulations, but genuine worker participation, it leads to a reduction in injuries, a reduction in deaths, and increased productivity. It is a cost that you put up front that is actually an investment. There is no greater investment than in the life of a worker, who has the right to go to work and go home safely to their family.

This bill will correct a wrong from the previous law that disallowed groups of workers to be able to request having that health and safety representation in their workplace. It is up to those workers to lead that charge. It is an excellent bill, I look forward to it going through the House, and I look forward to an evidence-based approach, which is what this Government is doing. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I absolutely agree with the fact that every Kiwi in New Zealand should be able to go to work and have a safe workplace—or as safe as possible, because some occupations carry more risk than others—and they should be able to go home to their families or to their home after work. We all agree with that, but I just cannot believe that this Government, under urgency, has brought a Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill into this House, squarely pushing more compliance back on employers, who are already extremely sensitive and heavily invested in making sure that their workplaces are safe for their employees.

At a time when we’re experiencing and seeing in this country a crime wave—and I’d ask the Labour members on the other side of the House: what do they think is the biggest health and safety issue for any person or employee currently working in retail? What do they think is the biggest risk? What do you think is at the forefront of their minds when they go to work each day? Anyone on the other side? No one. Not something that the employer can deal with. So how about the Government take a big step forward and acknowledge that they’ve got a responsibility in health and safety in the workplace as well and actually start to take some responsibility and do something themselves instead of bringing a bill into this House under urgency and putting it all back on the employer? Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I love this bill. My union mates love this bill too. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

The question is, That the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.