The Education and Workforce Committee has examined the Health and Safety at Work (Health and Safety Representatives and Committees) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed. We recommend all amendments unanimously.

The bill would amend the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. It seeks to reduce work-related harm by improving workers’ access to health and safety representatives and committees.

Currently, a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) can decline a request from its workers to initiate an election for a health and safety representative if it is not in a designated high-risk sector or industry and has fewer than 20 workers. These PCBUs can also choose not to decide on a request to establish a health and safety committee. All PCBUs can decline a request for a health and safety committee if satisfied that existing practices sufficiently meet requirements.

The bill would require all PCBUs to initiate elections and establish committees, if requested by workers. The bill would also introduce a timeframe for PCBUs to establish a health and safety committee “as soon as practicable” after receiving a request.

The bill would remove provisions in the Act that enable regulations to prescribe what is considered to be a high-risk sector or industry. These provisions, and the distinction between high-risk and low-risk, would no longer be necessary because the bill would treat all businesses the same.

As part of our consideration of the bill, we have examined its consistency with principles of legislative design. We have no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House.

This commentary covers one drafting amendment we recommend to the bill as introduced.

Clauses 4 and 5 of the bill would replace sections 62 and 66 of the Act respectively. We suggest some clarification of the wording.

Proposed section 62(1) says that a worker “may notify” the PCBU that they wish 1 or more health and safety representatives to be elected. Proposed section 62(2) goes on to say that if a PCBU “receives a notification” it must initiate an election. In contrast, proposed section 66(1) says that a health and safety representative or five or more workers “may request” that the PCBU establish a health and safety committee. Proposed section 66(2) says that the PCBU must establish a committee “as soon as practicable after receiving a request”.

Using the terms “notify” and “notification” in section 62, but the term “request” in section 66, may cause confusion about whether the different sections require different actions by workers. “Notify” may also imply a formal process, which is not the intent. We recommend amending proposed section 62 to use “request” instead of “notify” and “notification”. We think this would be clearer and more consistent with section 66.

We wish to point out that the use of the word “request” in sections 62(1) and 66(1) should not be understood to imply that the PCBU can decline. Indeed, sections 62(2) and 66(2) make clear that the PCBU must take certain actions after receiving a request from its workers.

The National Party opposes this bill.

The previous National Government set the threshold for forming health and safety committees, or electing a health and safety representative, at 20 employees. This was on the basis that for many small businesses, including those that are designated as low risk, training health and safety representatives is forcing unnecessary additional costs and compliance. Most small businesses have the ability to deal with health and safety matters informally and effectively.

It is estimated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that it will cost an employer who is employing an individual on the average wage approximately $1,355.75 to provide two days of training. This does not take into consideration the loss of productivity of the small business, nor the fact that staff turnover in sectors where that is expected (such as a small café or retail outlet that relies on casual or seasonal employees) would more than likely create a continual and ongoing expense.

This legislation follows a series of actions by the Government adding further cost pressures and burdens on small businesses. It follows rapid increases in the minimum wage, an extra week of sick leave, an extra public holiday, and the misnamed Fair Pay Agreements. All of these have been introduced at a time when employers are grappling with rampant inflation and chronic worker shortages.

Small businesses can only absorb so many additional costs in a short period of time before it becomes unsustainable. For the 105,000 businesses in New Zealand who fall under the threshold, this piece of legislation just adds more pressure and more cost.

Focus would better be placed on ensuring that WorkSafe operates as an effective regulator of the existing laws and regulations.