Energy Safety Review Bill

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this

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.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

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.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) Link to this

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 (Associate Minister of Energy) Link to this

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—

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) Link to this

I rise with pleasure again to speak on this particular bill, because it deals very much with best practice. For best practice to occur, the regulations governing the supply and use of electricity, and health and safety in employment, are very much part of the requirements. Now that National has worked on the initial proposals in the bill and has progressed them to the present stage, we feel that the bill is able to fulfil its requirements. The amendments in the bill largely concern themselves with matters of health and safety—clause 56 deals with that—and the regulation of electrical workers.

I refer again to my opening comments, in which I mentioned the 2005 total of 38,333 electrical workers and 20,099 registered electricians. That is a lot of people who will be responding to the requirements of the bill. I think it is significant to recall that we have seen a little bit of equivocation on this matter. The initial bill removed the registration of plumbers and electricians, and I note the Minister’s response. It was kind of him to stand and take a call to explain that. But National argued the importance of keeping it, and got the bills changed.

This is a major win for all the relevant tradespeople. I too have had meetings and contact with tradespeople when putting this bill together. The present Government really showed a considerable turn-round towards submissions, and I was delighted to experience that. For many tradespeople, registration is the zenith of their career achievement, and deservedly so.

One can say only that best practice has to extend to the entire business of electricity provision, and health and safety is, as I emphasised earlier, particularly important. Another major feature of health and safety is the recording and notifying of accidents and serious harm. This has been allowed for in the bill so that the provision is in compliance with other parts of the Health and Safety in Employment Act.

The transfer of accident information is important, too. In other words, it is not sufficient simply to report an accident or serious harm; it has to be conveyed properly to the secretary. The secretary must then notify the particulars of an accident to the person who must be notified under section 17(3) of the Gas Act, if the secretary is of the opinion that that section applies to the accident. Also, if the secretary is of the opinion that section 17 of that Act applies to that accident, then he or she must also notify the person who must be notified of the particulars of the accident under the Electricity Act.

I think that what we are seeing is a very satisfactory conclusion to something emphasised throughout the select committee consideration by the submitters, and that is the safety aspect of their work. I remember talking to the submitters when they were referring to connecting electrical units with gas units, because often the two skills are combined. The Committee will have heard that we have some 38,000 electrical workers and 20,000 registered electricians, so not everyone who works in the electricity sector is a registered electrician. Similarly, there were concerns on the part of both the electrical industry and the gas industry that for the people who actually install equipment, there was no real requirement for them to be qualified.

The submissions included aspects of concern, which have now been addressed. I think we have reached a satisfactory arrangement so that it is the connecting of the same, not just the installation, that has to be overseen and properly authorised. As they said: “Where does the responsibility lie?”. There can be a big bang. It was good to be part of that select committee. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for allowing me to take this slightly late call. I just wanted to respond to something the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, said. It is to do with Part 3 and the registration process, which my colleague is keen to take credit for. I think it is stretching things a little to say that it was a National Party intervention that caused this.

The first purpose of this bill, in the initial stage, was to simplify the registration and competence procedure surrounding trades. To that end the first bill was introduced with a single process called licensing. In the course of submissions it became very clear that there was a significant emotional attachment—in fact, it was more than an emotional attachment; identification—with registration. I have made this point in previous speeches, but it is worth saying again that the registration for electricians and other tradespeople, as we will see when we move on to later bills before us tonight, is as important to them as a doctor’s registration is to her or him. It is a very important rite of passage. It is an important milestone in their career. To that end, all parties around the select committee table agreed that it should be reinstated as registration and licensing—registration to recognise the gaining of the ticket, and licensing to ensure ongoing competence. When that was put as a possibility to the Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, he agreed entirely that that was an appropriate thing to do, given the strength of feeling and given his own experience of that, as well.

So what was I think in the first instance an effort to simplify the procedure, became reinstated as a two-stage process for registration and for ongoing competence. So I could not let the previous speaker claim that the National Party has sua sponte made a huge improvement for electricians and the universe in this regard. Thank you.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this

I remind the Committee that the purpose of the Energy Safety Review Bill is to assure the public that electrical workers are competent to undertake work and that electricity and gas supply systems do not put the public at significant risk. The legislation seeks to improve procedures for addressing complaints against workers and it enhances enforcement provisions. It broadens obligations to notify authorities of accidents caused by or involving electricity, electricity generation, electricity conversion, electricity transformation, or electricity conveyance. So everyone is affected. It relates to safety issues around electricity generators, electricity transmission, and, of course, the end-user. The legislation provides an obligation for electricity system owners to implement a safety management system—they must have one.

The legislation restricts people from doing, or assisting with, what we call prescribed electrical work, unless that person is licensed, but provides for exemptions from this. Members will recall that National argued strongly that registration would stay. Yes, the Minister axed it at the beginning when the legislation was first put into the House, but we argued that registration would remain. Maryan Street is quite right, registration remains because the select committee recommended that, and, of course, licensing is there as well to keep account of ongoing professional development and maintaining professional standards.

The legislation allows for different classes of licences and associated licensing standards. Originally in the bill the licences would last for up to 2 years but, of course, that provision has now been extended to 5 years, because it was madness to go through the licensing process every couple of years. The cost involved and the time involved would have been pretty tough for tradespeople, who are in short supply and who, on the whole, are doing a very, very good job, so we extended that to 5 years. It provides for licensing of employers for up to 5 years to ensure that their employees are licensed and supervised, and it establishes a register of electrical workers that is publicly available and allows for complaints made by any person.

When the gasfitters, plumbers, and drainlayers came to National members across the country and said: “Listen, we don’t want to be part of this bill.”, the National MPs came to Wellington, banged the tables, put the case, and ensured that drainlayers, gasfitters, and plumbers fronted the Commerce Committee and told it of their concerns. The legislation was then split in two so that we deal with drainlayers, gasfitters, and plumbers in one bill, and electrical workers and others in another bill, which, of course is the ultimate outcome because there are issues that are specific to both and unique to both. I thank the members of the select committee for seeing the sense in that, and my National Party colleagues for bringing those issues to Parliament.

National did oppose this bill at the first reading because of insufficient consultation with plumbers. We support the bill now because the Government has seen good sense. It knows good sense when it sees it. There is the issue of standard setting that we were concerned about; that has been addressed. The initial bill removed the registration of these groups, but of course the select committee process has seen that return in there. The Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, is himself still a card-carrying tradesperson—that is what it is called in the Labour Party, is it not?