Energy Safety Review Bill

Members will know that the National Party is supporting this bill. This was not our position at the beginning, when the Government first introduced the legislation to the House. That was because we, as a team, were somewhat disappointed to be hounded up and down the country in our electorate offices—from as far north as Kerikeri, in John Carter’s electorate, to as far south as Bill English’s electorate of Clutha-Southland—by plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers who were concerned that they had been incorporated into the legislation that Harry Duynhoven had introduced without any consultation whatsoever regarding the technicalities and specifics of their industry. They were absolutely appalled at this. The first they had heard of changes to their industry—changes to the standards they practised under, changes to the framework they trained under as tradespeople; all those issues addressed in this bill—was when the legislation hit the Table in this House.

So National opposed the first reading, because of insufficient consultation with plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, because of the appropriation of standards setting—we felt it was inappropriate at that time—and because of a lack of assessment of additional costs and the impact on the availability of skilled tradespeople. Believe it or not, the original legislation included gasfitters, drainlayers, and plumbers—they have been set aside from the bill we are considering tonight—as well as those working in the electricity industry. The standards were so absurd, in terms of training and professional development, that they baulked at it, knowing first of all the waste of their time that would ensue, and also the costs that would be rammed home to them. Fortunately, changes were made. The initial bill removed the registration of plumbers, electricians, and other trades, and, at the time, National argued the importance of keeping registration, and we were fortunate to have the bill changed at that point so that we could keep the registration of those tradespeople. It was a major win for all those involved.

It was one of the rare occasions when people came to constituency offices of members of Parliament—from John Carter in the north through to Bill English in the south—put an issue on the table, and the National MPs came to Wellington and brought about a change. In this case, people came back to us and thanked us personally for the work we did. Occasionally Harry Duynhoven does work in his electorate office, too, and he will find that it is not often that people come back to thank their members of Parliament for the work they have done. But I can say that plumbers, drainlayers, electricians, gasfitters, and all those involved in the trades included in the original legislation made the effort to come back to National members of Parliament to thank us very much for the changes we had brought about, to say that they were generally happy with the legislation before us now and looked forward to our speeches in the House, and to ask us to please support this legislation. Of course, the National Party does support this legislation.

That brings us to Part 1, which we are discussing this evening. I would like to spend some time on the definitions within Part 1, and my colleague from the West Coast, Chris Auchinvole, will deal with other issues of substance further on in Part 1.

First of all are issues to do with the term “serious harm”. I note that the Commerce Committee members thought it prudent not to put the definition of “serious harm” in subsidiary regulation. Instead, they decided to strike that out, and to put the definition of “serious harm” occurring in the energy sector—harm to, perhaps, electricians or others affected in the course of their work—into the primary legislation.

The legislation states that “serious harm” includes death. It will come as a surprise to members that the select committee decided that death falls into the category of “serious harm”! It is no surprise to me. Of course, illness or injury that results in someone “receiving medical treatment from a health practitioner who is, or is deemed to be, registered” with an appropriate authority constitutes serious harm. It is also an “injury that necessitates the person suffering the injury—(i) being admitted to hospital;”. Harry Duynhoven, the Minister in charge of the bill, in his wisdom had decided that “serious harm” would also be defined as death. So if someone died, serious harm had happened to that person. We in the National Party support that. I do not think we had to take that to our caucus. We agree that that would be the case. That is one definition that needed to be changed, and I think it was wise to bring that into the legislation, rather than put it into regulation, to make it clear that “serious harm” is indeed significant harm.

Secondly, there is the issue of applicable minimum standards for licensing. This means the minimum standard for the class of licence in question, and that comes under new Part 10, in clause 12. The National Party argued quite strongly on behalf of tradespeople that the licensing regime that Harry Duynhoven had dreamt about would not be the best way forward. Gasfitters, plumbers, drainlayers, and those in the electricity sector, whom this bill addresses, wanted to retain registration. Registration as a builder, a plumber, or a gasfitter is widely understood amongst the public as having some significance. The Associate Minister wanted to introduce licensing, and there was some confusion, even amongst those in the trades, as to what that would mean and how it was different from registration. Registration is very much part of society and there is understanding of it. There are registered nurses, registered medical practitioners, and, now, registered engineers because of the work of our predecessors in this Parliament. People understand what registration means. So issues in the definitions to do with licensing were struck out. That shows the shift back to registration, which the National Party fought for, and we certainly support the select committee pushing that through.

Part 1 also addresses accidents and the danger that can occur in the energy sector when tradespeople do their job incorrectly, or without the knowledge or skills required. There was some concern originally that this bill should focus substantially on safety—hence its title. Issues in clause 8 relate to the notification and investigation of accidents: how that is to be carried forward, how information regarding an accident that has occurred is recognised and catalogued, and, obviously downstream, what can be learnt from that accident so that it does not happen again. There are also issues about how we deal with a situation where work that an electrician has done causes a danger to someone. The danger may be to the electrician himself or herself, or an unsafe environment may be created that is a danger to all those involved, whether they are working as electricians or are members of the general public. Those issues are also addressed in the bill.

Clause 12 deals with restrictions on electrical work. Section 74 is headed “Restrictions on doing or assisting with prescribed electrical work”. The original section 74 that the Associate Minister introduced stated: “(1) A person must not do any prescribed electrical work, or assist in doing any prescribed electrical work, unless that person—(a) is authorised to do so under a licence …; and (b) does so within the limits prescribed by regulations.” Again, that has changed.

The Māori Party will support the Energy Safety Review Bill, but I have an amendment on the table to omit Subpart 2, “Employer licences”, from Part 10, “Registration and licensing of electrical workers and employer licences”. This amendment was suggested in the public submission of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union to the Commerce Committee. The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union is New Zealand’s largest trade union, representing some 50,000 workers in 10 industries, including 2,500 who work in the electrical industry.

Currently the Electrical Workers Licensing Board can issue practising licences to individuals and employers. We do not support the board being able to issue employer licences whereby employers can hold a practising licence on behalf of their workers. That compromises both workers and the public. It is important to have highly trained people that fellow workers can absolutely rely on. It gives workers confidence to know that their colleagues are properly trained and hold their own individual practising licence, rather than knowing the licence is held by the employer. Business costs and skill shortages mean that employers may use less trained, less experienced people, putting the other workers and the public at risk. Workers do not have faith in allowing companies to self-regulate.

The intent of this bill is to ensure the safety of workers and of the public. Employer licences potentially compromise the safety of both.

I rise to join my colleague Phil Heatley in speaking to support the Energy Safety Review Bill. Part 1 explains the significance of the purpose, and it is, I would suggest, extraordinarily important. It affects not just the 38,333 electrical workers in this country, or the 20,099 registered electricians, but every household, every business premise, and, indeed, anywhere that benefits from the provision of light and power supplied by electricity—as long as, of course, the generation and transmission systems are still extant. The bill is about the assurance that members of the public can have that the electrical workers are competent to undertake work that electricity and gas supply systems provide, and that they do not put people at significant risk.

In speaking to Part 1 of this bill I feel it is significant to spend a little time to reflect on new section 1A. Part 1 clearly states that the bill is amending the principal Act, the Electricity Act of 1992. The reason why this all came about is contained in the initial commentary, but, in essence, it was to align the regulations governing electricity workers to those of gasfitters, and it also incorporates plumbing and drainlaying in turn, because the regulations cross-refer from time to time. So that Act needed changing. The present Government tried to do it all in one hit. Frankly, it did not really work, and we had speakers covering the detail of that last week, so I will not go over the ground again.

But I am delighted to say that the Commerce Committee was a wonderful committee to be part of. National had to, I think, come to the rescue of the bill and of the industries involved. One could say that we largely saved the day, and no doubt my parliamentary colleagues from the other side will graciously confirm that when they speak to the bill as well. I am sure they will. It was a bill on which everyone worked hard with their shoulders to the wheel.

The bill seeks to provide the public and individual members of the public with an assurance of safety in matters electrical. That this is necessary is borne out by the experience of anybody who has been obliged to move around the country a bit in pursuit of their career. In my own case I have had a number of shifts, and on each occasion bought a house that needed what real estate agents call “TLC” or tender loving care. In every case when we moved in, after we had fixed the foundations and re-roofed, we found that there were electrical faults and we had the house rewired. It is an expensive business.

In one house that we had, and I am not suggesting that it was done within legislation of any sort, the previous owner had clearly done the wiring himself. The electrician we engaged explained the consequences of the cowboy operation that had been performed. He demonstrated that the system was unable to cope with the amount of electricity being drawn through it, and that the result was that the old-fashioned fuses would have blown frequently. He then said: “I’ll show you what they do then.” We moved to the fuse box. He removed the fuses and showed the thickness of the wires that had been used to replace the original frequently failed wire. I am not suggesting it was number eight, but gosh it was not much narrower than No. 12 or No. 14 gauge.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Ha!

It really was, Harry, it really was! The consequence, the electrician explained, was that we could easily have had a wiring failure in the wall cavities or the ceiling cavities, which would have caused a fire with disastrous consequences; it was an old kauri house.

I agree, of course, that for an unqualified person to wire a house was no more legal then than it is now, but it did happen. How vulnerable the public are when that sort of thing occurs. I was extraordinarily grateful, and continue to be grateful to the dedication of skilled tradespeople who ensure that everything is done in a safe way. Electricity is a service and a skill that cannot be other than best practice.

I would like to thank colleagues who have spoken, for their support for the bill and for their positive comments. Can I say that it is a little unfortunate that the speaker who spoke immediately before me was referred to as “erstwhile” by his good friend and colleague Phil Heatley. I think “erstwhile” means former, or at one time, rather than current. However, let us talk about the bill before us. I would like to tell Mr Heatley that the consultation—and I absolutely accept that the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers of this country felt very aggrieved and believed they had not been consulted in the process of the preparation of this bill; I absolutely accept that that was their feeling—

💬 Phil Heatley: They came to see me.

They came to see me as well, of course, as an electorate MP. Can I assure Mr Heatley that I am a very active and very busy electorate MP. Can I also tell him that the consultation with the plumbers, drainlayers, gasfitters, and electrical workers was much the same. It was done through their organisations that represent them. Unfortunately, as the Commerce Committee members well know—and I think Mr Heatley was a member of the select committee from time to time; and his colleagues on the select committee well know—the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board had some quite substantial difficulties that resulted in a complete review of the organisation of that particular industry.

The lack of consultation between the board and the participants in the industry caused a lot of grief. I am pleased that what has occurred since then has redressed some of the problems. I would like to thank all members of the select committee, especially the chair, Katherine Rich, and Maryan Street, who led from the Labour side, for the huge work that the whole committee did, but especially those two, in resolving some of the issues.

There was a lot of consultation with the electricity and gas sectors over many years leading up to this bill, which was actually prepared and written in the time of my predecessor. Those making submissions to the select committee recognised quite clearly that there had been a lot of consultation and work done jointly in trying to make a whole new bill to look after the interests of the energy safety side. There was not the same level of consultation with plumbers and drainlayers—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Why didn’t you bring them together?

I did try to bring them together. Plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters have traditionally been one industry, but the energy safety service oversees all of energy safety—electricians and the gas industry. As a result the gasfitting side of plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying had been consulted and well involved, but unfortunately the plumbers and drainlayers had not received the same level of consultation from their board.

Can I show Mr Heatley this tattered remnant of my own registration as an electrician, from many years ago. I have carried it in my wallet from the day I was awarded it as an apprentice. The reason I have carried it—[Interruption] No, this is the replacement one, from 1984, but the original was from 1974 or 1975. The reason I carry it, even though I do not carry my teaching diploma or my masters degree, is the fact that this was the first solid qualification I had after I left school. There are many, many electricians, plumbers, and mechanics who are very proud of the initial qualification that they received, and for that reason my argument to the officials was that we should keep registration, because it is the core of competency. It is just as in the aviation industry: a pilot is registered with the Civil Aviation Authority as a pilot, and then he or she has a currency that allows that pilot to practise at that time. That was the regime we have adopted, and I am very pleased that that is where we have come to in the bill. We have registration that says someone has done the basic core work and needs to be competent in the job, and then there is a practising licence.

The original proposal was about lining up with the building industry—the builders, the architects, and many others—but there has been a rethink on that issue, partly because of all the submissions and partly because of the Minister and others saying: “Hey, is this a step too far? Should we keep registration?”, and that is where I have always been and I am very pleased that the select committee has agreed with that.

I say to Dr Sharples, who has put forward an amendment on employer licences, that this issue has been very solidly considered. The original concept of employer licences was to ensure that employers were confident that the employees working in their particular industry were competent in the particular tasks and in the particular equipment in that industry—power station people, substations, etc. Employer licences have been valid in the electricity sector and used for well over a decade. They are an alternative to individual electrical worker licences, but still require the same high levels of competency of workers. There had been some discussion—and this is what the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and many in the industry argued strongly against—about dispensing with the concept of employer licences. This was a matter of quite some discussion. I personally had many discussions with workers in the electrical industry who were very, very concerned about this issue.

Electrical work is high risk, and employees need to be sure that their fellow workers are suitably qualified. Employer licences do require that, they do require the competence, so for that reason there has been nothing in the bill that will reduce the need for electrical worker competency in the workplace; rather, the competency requirements for individual workers need to be matched, for an employer licence to be granted, or indeed for a practising licence if one is a registered worker under the normal registrar of electrical workers.

I think the issues Dr Sharples has raised have been well covered in this legislation. I think what we have arrived at, with the assistance of the select committee, is a bill that covers a number of the issues very, very well indeed. I thank the Commerce Committee for its work. It has been thorough. This has not been an easy amalgam of different trades and industries to manage in one bill. That is why the select committee decided to break the bill into two halves and then to combine it at a later stage, when the issues were sorted. I believe they have been largely sorted. There is a Supplementary Order Paper from myself, which will be debated later in the process, that addresses some of the issues involved.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 12 be agreed to:

to omit Subpart 2 of new Part 10.