Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill

It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. Part 1 has, effectively, a lot of administrative aspects to it. It sets up the WorkSafe organisation. It enables the efficient, effective, and, hopefully, fair and just transfer of existing staff whose employer is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to the new legal employer, which will be WorkSafe New Zealand. I know that some of the officials in the ministry who are anticipating the transfer of their employment to WorkSafe are excited by that prospect, are looking forward to it, and are energised by it, and that is what we need.

I commend the Minister of Labour, the Hon Simon Bridges, for a set of provisions, including one, I think, that responded to an earlier Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 371, by Brendan Horan, which was very concerned about whether or not some service-related entitlements would survive the transfer of employment. I see that that has been achieved, although my own view was that that had been achieved in the original bill, but then Mr Horan has a level of wisdom and sagacity that often eludes most of us. So that is good.

There is an issue, however, that I think, does call for further consideration and comment and, indeed, is the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, Supplementary Order Paper 387, and that is the governing board of WorkSafe New Zealand. One of the critical things that came out of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy’s report was the comment about tripartism. The commission drew upon the wealth of knowledge and literature that now prevails about what happens in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has very much blazed the trail and led the way when it comes to health and safety governance at an institutional level and at an enterprise level. It did that, of course, a long time ago. It set up its dedicated health and safety body, called the Health and Safety Executive, in 1974 after a succession of workplace catastrophes, including the Aberfan coalmine disaster in Wales in the 1960s. It came up with the model that meant that even at the institutional governance level, at the governing board of the Health and Safety Executive, it should have true tripartism—equal representation of employers, of workers through their unions, and, obviously, of the Government.

The bill as it is currently worded allows a board of at least five but no more than nine, and then sets out a range of criteria for appointees. Only one of them refers to the member’s having experience in or capability in, amongst other things, “perspectives of workers”. “Perspectives of workers”—what does that mean? The only real, genuine, and authentic perspective of a worker comes from a worker’s representative themselves. I think what is important about tripartism, what makes it powerful and enduring, is that the tripartite representatives come from the constituency that they are representing. It is not a ministerial appointment. It comes from the constituency itself.

I have proposed Supplementary Order Paper 387, which does away with the current wording of the bill and replaces subclause 1 in clause 7 with a new subclause to establish a board comprising “3 representatives appointed by the organisation recognised for the time being as the peak body representing workers”—that is, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, which, of course, is recognised as the peak body. We have that already because the Government already recognises peak bodies for workers and for employers. For workers currently it is the Council of Trade Unions. For employers currently it is Business New Zealand.

The Government currently recognises those two peak organisations for the purposes of representation at the ILO, the International Labour Organization, an organisation that is itself dedicated to tripartite representation—not an equal balance. It is 50 percent workers and employers, or 25 percent each, and 50 percent for Government. Well, this is a tripartism that sets up equal representation. There are three representatives from the peak organisation for workers, three representatives from the peak organisation for employers, and three representatives of Government. That, I think, is genuinely tripartite. The Government can fashion its representatives. It can allow for some independence, of course, and that is very important.

A consequential amendment to effect that is also to delete a couple of the references in subclause 2 to clause 7 with a genuinely tripartite body. It is not necessary to make the references in paragraph (d) and paragraph (da) to perspectives of workers and perspectives of employers. It will still be necessary, in terms of the Government appointees, to ensure that there is public sector governance, knowledge, and experience; central Government process, knowledge, and experience; health and safety; and all the rest of it.

The purpose of this is very clear. It is to truly reflect what, in my view, the royal commission was getting at, and that is genuine tripartism. That means all those interests coming together, even at that senior level, the policy-making level, and with all the powers that WorkSafe New Zealand will have, will ensure that there is a full balance of perspectives taken and that it is not driven entirely by, nor totally accountable to, just Government. This is a body that must reflect and represent those elements that make up workplaces and industries in New Zealand—that is, workers and employers—with the Government providing that overlying and perhaps that overarching provision there, as well.

I would urge members to vote for that. This is an opportunity for us, as we establish WorkSafe, to establish a state-of-the-art organisation as we move towards state-of-the-art health and safety provision, health and safety regulation, and health and safety regulation enforcement. That, I think, is the genuine ambition of the Government. It was the genuine ambition of the previous Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson, it was the genuine ambition of the interim Minister of Labour, Chris Finlayson, and I believe—I am prepared to infer—that it is the genuine ambition of the current Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges. So I would urge the Government and the Minister to look closely and carefully at that amendment and support it.

I want to make one other comment and that is about advisory groups. I made this comment before. It is a good idea to have advisory groups, but the advisory groups provided for in clause 8 of the bill really have no teeth. Really, if they are to be meaningful, in addition to having representatives from the relevant industries and having people who are knowledgable in those industries and who can assist with the preparation of the drafting of good regulations and good codes of practice and with setting good standards, then it is preferable that they have a little more teeth, as well. Beyond just advising the board of WorkSafe, perhaps their power should be a little more meaningful than that.

Nevertheless, it is a good idea, in terms of industry engagement, to get the best possible regulation and the best possible standards, and to be able to delegate that to advisory boards. I would just perhaps ask the Minister how he sees that operating to ensure that those advisory groups and the role that they play is genuinely meaningful and will genuinely engage the industries and interest people to get them on board to do it. I look forward to the Minister’s response and contribution to this part as we debate Part 1.

This is the setting up. It is laying the foundation for the new WorkSafe New Zealand, which will be the flag bearer for health and safety in New Zealand—the dedicated agency that we have been asking for all this time, which both the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the recent independent advisory committee endorsed—so it is good if we take this opportunity to get it right. I think there is a willingness within this House tonight to do that, and I hope the Minister will listen very carefully. We will support the change that has been put up for governance. We will answer the query about how the advisory groups will function in practice so that we get the best-quality input from across industry and from the workforces within that industry. On that point, as I say, we look forward to supporting this bill and to seeing New Zealand at last take that great and very important step into the future with the best possible health and safety administration that we can muster.

I rise with pleasure to follow on from my colleague Andrew Little and to support the passage of this bill, the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill, from the Government. However, I must point, I guess, to some of the questions that need to be answered by the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Labour, and to some of the issues that will arise as an outcome of the legislation. As my colleague Mr Little said, much of this Part 1 refers to the transitional provisions in setting up WorkSafe New Zealand. I have to say that on the weekend I had a discussion at the opening of the new, expanded mines rescue building and base just north of Greymouth, where this was a topic of conversation, and most people welcomed the progress in this area.

There are a couple of things in working through. Right up front in Part 1 here it states that “relevant health and safety legislation” means the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, the Machinery Act, and a couple of others like the Electricity Act. Most of those pieces of legislation are quite old. The question I have of the Minister and, I guess, of officials is that what we do not want to be doing in making what is substantive progress in the area of workplace health and safety—setting up WorkSafe New Zealand—is be constrained by reference to legislation that, in the Electricity Act, goes back to 1992. The Gas Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Act, as we know, were passed in 1992.

The Health and Safety in Employment Act was a flawed piece of legislation—absolutely. I am not sure that the Electricity Act or the Gas Act is, but what I want to know is that, in referencing back to those pieces of legislation, technology or wisdom has not surpassed key reference points in the legislation. I want to know that WorkSafe New Zealand, as set up, can actually have some sound drivers, aside from the legislation we are passing here, but also that it is not referencing back to legislation that may be flawed. As I say, I think we have clearly established that the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 is seriously flawed when it comes to some areas of workplace safety, although the officials might not agree. We would say that in forestry and we would say that in mining there are big gaps, and we need WorkSafe New Zealand to get on and do a good job.

I support the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 387 put forward by my colleague Andrew Little. Tripartite approaches towards workplace safety are essential. The sad result of the terrible Pike River tragedy was in part because there was not equal strength from employees when it came to raising issues, raising concerns, in the area of the workplace and how it was operating. We need to know that those people who put their lives on the line have fair representation right at the top level of policy development, of practice, and of, I guess, inspection, ultimately, to ensure that this happens.

I have to say that the Government has made some changes. They have been welcomed throughout the mining industry, and all the functions here stated in clause 10 are well and good, but they mean nothing if the resources are not provided, and the Government has not provided adequate resourcing for the current responsibilities of the new High Hazards Unit and the other areas of workplace health and safety inspections, particularly in mining. Although we may be comforting ourselves in the Committee here tonight that we are passing legislation, moving forward, and setting up WorkSafe New Zealand, I can say categorically that the resources that the Minister and his colleagues have put up so far are inadequate—totally inadequate. I want to hear from the Minister—it is not in the legislation—a commitment to adequate resourcing that means that people are not compromised in their duties.

A sad submission to the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was from a mines inspector, whom I know personally, whose life has been shattered by this, but who I know felt compromised almost from the time that he took on the job as a mines inspector. I think that we all share some of the responsibility of that inadequate resourcing for him. But it is not good enough for us to pass legislation in Parliament, upgrading standards, upgrading the systems, but not providing the resources. That is a regular comment that I hear from families of the Pike River men who lost their lives—people who are monitoring progress in this area very closely—because they have a real commitment. Their husbands or fathers have paid a huge price to learn the lessons that are delivering us the legislation in the Committee at the moment. I hope the Minister will—and I am sure he will—rise and give us some assurances in this area. It is essential.

I hope that the Government will also see the wisdom of supporting Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 387, which does, and will, entrench a tripartite approach to health and safety. No employer is on the job the whole time and can know the minute-by-minute risk and the changing risk profile that occur in an underground mine, or in a quarry, or in any underground situation. We have had an explosion in a tunnel in Auckland, so it is not just in underground mines. We have had tragedies, we have had workplace accidents, where they should not have occurred. We are boosting and bolstering the functions of these people, their obligations, but I have not yet seen the resourcing.

This is on behalf of not only the people of the West Coast, the region where much of the mining occurs, but also the people of Huntly—all the people who work in places of higher risk than the offices that we normally sit in on a day-to-day basis and that most of the officials sit in. We can manage our risk. But until people go underground—and, indeed, there are people in the new superministry, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, an organisation that has a huge range of responsibilities, who have responsibilities for mine safety and have never been underground. I find that strange, if not alarming. I would hope that every single person involved in the development of these regulations and of these practices goes underground for a couple of hours, because until you have been there, you cannot appreciate what these men are working in every minute of their shifts. The lack of appreciation and the casual approach that was taken in 1992—that the employer will know and manage the risk—has been shown to be totally inadequate, to have been, in fact, in hindsight, irresponsible.

We have moved on. I acknowledge the Government and its efforts to improve legislation, to make the changes as recommended—not all the changes. We need Supplementary Order Paper 387 from Mr Little to implement the changes recommended by the royal commission around tripartite representation. If the Government once again steps back from the wisdom of that long and agonising process for the families—but in my view a very sound process that delivered sound recommendations—then it has got to have a pretty good reason. I have not heard one yet when it comes to the Minister’s proposal to appoint all the people to WorkSafe New Zealand. I am sure the Minister will take the opportunity to explain why, but the people who have their lives on the line need to have some input into the health and safety regime under which they work. That is the least that can be expected for them. On that issue, and the one of resourcing—

I would like to take just a brief call on Part 1 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. It establishes WorkSafe New Zealand as a stand-alone body—a Crown entity. It takes the important occupational health and safety work that was only recently folded into the superministry, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and places that important work into a separate entity, WorkSafe New Zealand. It does that because that work cannot be done well, it cannot be done effectively, and it cannot be done reliably in a superministry.

In clause 9 the bill provides that the main objection of WorkSafe is “to promote and contribute to the prevention of harm to all people at work and in, or in the vicinity of, the workplace, securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” That is a pretty big ask, and one the chief executive and the board of WorkSafe will have to work hard to achieve. Their work will be scrutinised. They will be held to account for the safety of every New Zealand family that hopes that their fathers and mothers return home safe and return home alive at the end of each day. I wish them well. I would draw attention to the forestry industry and some of the tragic injuries and fatalities that have occurred there.

In clause 10 we have a baker’s dozen of functions that WorkSafe must discharge in order to fulfil its clause 9 objective. I would like to turn to Subpart 3 because this legislation not only is about the health and safety of all workers and all workplaces but also transfers the employment of around about 300 people. I am speaking about the people who today are working for the health and safety group of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. When this bill comes into force they will keep doing the same job, but their employer will, at the stroke of a pen, become WorkSafe New Zealand. This is not uncommon as Governments reorganise the public sector from time to time—indeed, some say too often. But reorganisation has been happening since the time of Petronius Arbiter, if I am to believe the apocryphal quotation attributed to that long-dead Roman, but I digress. What is important is that the employment protections of the 300 workers are protected.

A newspaper article caught my eye around about a month ago, and it was the story of a teacher-aide in Whanganui who had lost entitlement to paid parental leave because although she was doing the same job at the same site, her employer had technically changed from one school board of trustees to another. She had therefore fallen between the cracks. When I looked at this Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill as reported by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I saw that in clause 12 it explicitly protected the KiwiSaver rights and the Employment Relations Act coverage of the 300 workers being transferred, but it seems that people amongst the workers with new babies might lose parental leave. So I released Supplementary Order Paper 371 and I wrote to the honourable Minister Simon Bridges at more or less the same time.

To give the Minister credit, he and I spar at times in this Chamber—there is sometimes a little Tauranga tension—but on this occasion he accepted the point. He undertook to obtain urgent advice, and he undertook to address the issue of transferred employees and parental leave in a Government Supplementary Order Paper. I was happy with that, but then the Minister went and did better. With my resources I had been able to release Supplementary Order Paper 371 to protect not only KiwiSaver but Employment Relations Act rights and parental leave, but the Minister, with the entire machinery of government available, identified a better solution. It is new clause 12, which is on Supplementary Order Paper 374. It simply says: “The employment of a transferred employee by WorkSafe New Zealand is be treated as continuous employment for the purposes of any enactment.” That is a great solution. The 300 workers who are working for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment today will, when this Act comes into force, be treated as having continuous employment, and will lose no rights and no entitlements that are available to them under any Act of Parliament. I thank Simon Bridges for that.

I cannot believe I am saying this, but I hope this can become a standard piece of drafting for future legislation on transfers of employment. I note that in the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill, which the Government has indicated will progress this week, it is proposed to transfer some Housing New Zealand Corporation staff into the Ministry of Social Development. I would hope that the Minister in charge of that bill, Nick Smith, will be able to follow the lead of his colleague Minister Simon Bridges and incorporate the substance of this clause 12 into that bill.

I will conclude by saying that I hope the establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand is the beginning of safer workplaces in our nation. I hope that they will be, as my colleague said before me, fully and adequately funded and resourced so that their fathers and mothers, their sons, and their daughters will return safe at the end of each day.

It is a great pleasure and a privilege to take a call on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill as the relevant Minister. I say that being very mindful that, as I apprehend it, there is multipartisan support for this bill. That is a very good thing indeed. I think we are as a Committee doing absolutely the right things here: firstly, in implementing the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy’s recommendations across the board, really, but also doing something, if I can say so, that is wider than that, which is having regard to and implementing the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety’s recommendations, particularly in Part 1, to establish WorkSafe New Zealand.

I will just talk very briefly about WorkSafe New Zealand. I think we can say that this really is something exceptionally significant. It is part of, along with this bill and the future work in a health and safety reform bill that I hope to also introduce before the end of the year, the biggest reforms in health and safety in 20 years—perhaps, actually, longer than that. Just to reassure the member Damien O’Connor, I think we can say that WorkSafe New Zealand will be a very well-resourced independent Crown agency. Funding is going from some $50 million - odd to about $80 million per annum. It may not sound like much, but it is a 5c to 8c increase in the health and safety in employment levy on workers, and that will mean, I am confident, that the agency has the funding to do the job of health and safety in this country properly. There will be a review of it, and my memory is that that will be in 2016-17. Again, that is to make sure that we fund this important work properly.

We have heard from the member Brendan Horan that some 300 people are transferring over to this new Crown agency, which will be independently looking after health and safety. Actually, I think that by the time the funding is in place and we have finished, it will be a reasonably significantly greater number than that. So, as I say, this is significant work we are doing. This will be a body that will have, I think, all the tools in the tool kit—education at one end and working with business, through to, yes, some tougher penalties and, I suppose, tools in the tool kit on that end of the spectrum. So that is a good thing. Of course, there are other parts of this bill that we will come to in other speeches in this Committee stage, but I just thought it was important to talk about WorkSafe New Zealand.

Actually, it is quite a big departure from what we have done in the past. It is going against the trend, actually, of not necessarily setting up new Crown agencies, as we have seen over the last few years. I think it is the first one like this in some time, and that is, I think, a good thing because it does need to be independent, it does need to be strong, and it does need to have a sole focus on health and safety. Our record, across Governments and as a society, of 75 people dying per annum, which is about what it is at the moment, is simply not good enough. In fact, if we benchmark it against other countries, it is pretty poor. I, for one, am confident, actually, that although it is ambitious, WorkSafe’s target from me, from the Government, and, I think, from this House to have at least a 25 percent reduction by 2020 can be achieved. Resourcing it, giving it the tools, is very important.

I will just touch briefly on some of the members’ contributions. I think we have had some thoughtful speeches, very constructive speeches. The member Damien O’Connor has talked about the Machinery Act. I will advise the member that that will be repealed through the new health and safety reform bill, so I think that we are making sure we are modernising. Of course, WorkSafe will also have powers to advise me and, I suppose, push me and future Ministers of Labour to change regulations, to look at laws, and to make sure we are continually updating them and keeping them fit for purpose.

I want to also assure the member that the whole policy team has now been underground. I have been underground at Huntly East Underground Mine. It was an eye-opener for me to see that and to see what is happening there. To be literally covered in—I was going to say black, but actually it is white, because I think they cover the coal there in lime or something, do they not? It is quite impressive to see what is happening there, as we further Supplementary Order Paper 374 on the protocols. We have tried to put in place a good protocol for safety underground. That is why I was there. We also say to the member about his other point that, hey, the workers, the people down there, we need to be talking to them, and we certainly have been—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.