Third Readings

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) Link to this

I move, That the Electricity Amendment Bill, the Gas Amendment Bill, the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill, the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Amendment Bill, and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill be now read a third time.

These bills represent the Government’s ongoing commitment to the safe delivery and use of electricity and gas, and to the delivery of good health outcomes arising from plumbing and drainlaying. The bills will ensure continued access to safe and reliable energy for our everyday use and for use in industry, and ensure electricity and gas supply safety management systems that minimise the public’s exposure to risk.

The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill update the occupational regulations provisions for electrical workers, plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers by delegating registration and licensing to the Electrical Workers Registration Board and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. An important feature of these two bills is that they provide for the continuation of a registration and licensing regime, recognising the investment made by tradespeople who obtain their qualification.

The registration and licensing regime will be more flexible to allow for specialist registration categories and for competencies to be specified for the particular work authorised under each registration category. Another important feature of these two bills is to provide for competency-based licensing. This will ensure that before a worker is issued with a new licence, he or she is competent in specified areas, such as the use of new equipment and the changes in standards and regulations.

These two bills continue employer licences in the electricity and gas industries. These licences have been used for over 10 years and are an alternative to individual worker licences, but they still require the same high level of competency of workers.

Nothing in these bills reduces the need for competency in the workplace. In a workplace requiring electrical and gasfitting skills, either individuals who are registered and licensed must be employed or the workplace must have an employer licence.

During the Commerce Committee’s consideration of the Energy Safety Review Bill it became evident to the Government and the committee that there was a breakdown in the relationship between the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board and the Plumbing, Gasfitting and Drainlaying Industry Training Organisation. Earlier this year, in an acknowledgment of these concerns, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, Minister for Tertiary Education, ordered an independent review on the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation.

The Commerce Committee took into account the recommendations in this report and related them to the bill. As a result, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill now provides greater guidance to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board on its role and on the procedures to be followed, establishes increased accountability of the board to the relevant Minister, and provides greater clarity about the respective roles of the industry training organisation and the board.

The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Gas Amendment Bill require safety management systems to provide a framework for the owners of electricity generators greater than 10 megawatts and require the owners of the electricity and gas distribution systems to take responsibility for developing their own safety regimes. This approach acknowledges modern risk management concepts and has widespread industry support.

The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Gas Amendment Bill provide for new offences, including offences in respect of a person intentionally or negligently creating a risk of serious harm or significant property damage, and offences in respect of breaches of the occupational licence conditions. Penalties for serious harm to a person or serious harm to property have been increased to reflect those in the Health and Safety in Employment Act.

The transitional arrangements of the Electricity Amendment Bill and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill include carrying forward the existing registrations and licences. These also allow the registration boards to commence work immediately on defining new registration categories and standards, and the terms and conditions of registration and licensing. The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Gas Amendment Bill require some existing regulations to be updated, and also require that some new regulations be introduced. This work will be done in consultation with the industry and other interested parties.

Energy is critical to the economic growth, prosperity, and social well-being of all New Zealanders. Plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers play a significant part in contributing to this country’s good health outcomes. These bills are an important part of ensuring continued consumer confidence in the energy industry by promoting the safe supply and use of electricity and gas. The bills will provide greater assurance of safety to consumers wanting work undertaken. They will also make it easier for tradespeople to gain competencies that are relevant to their particular areas of work.

I again commend the chairperson of the Commerce Committee, Katherine Rich, and the members of the committee, especially Maryan Street, for the work they have done on considering the Energy Safety Review Bill and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill. To all those who made submissions to the select committee, and to Hazel Armstrong, I express my appreciation for their time and their views.

Finally, the work that has been done on this legislation by officials has been tremendous, and that is evident in the acknowledgments that officials have received from both sides of the House. I especially thank Evelyn Cole, Jim Green and Scott Murray for their dedication, patience, and hard work. I commend this bill to the House.

KATHERINE RICH (National) Link to this

It is a great pleasure to stand in the House and take part in the third readings of these five bills. It is clear that the job at hand was quite an ambitious one. Members will recall that we started off with the Energy Safety Review Bill, which attempted to create the five bills that we are debating, finally, in the House today.

It is an example of how members of Parliament can work really well together as a whole. National, of course, did not support the first draft of this legislation, but through the select committee process there was, around the table, a genuine desire to come up with something suitable for the industry—for all of the electrical workers, plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers in this country.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of Minister Harry Duynhoven, because it was clear to me that he had a genuine interest in coming up with the best law for the industry. He did not have that traditional approach: “This is my bill. It’s right; everybody else is wrong. Push it through.” He had a genuine belief in the select committee process; in the role of taking submissions and listening to people, and making changes as a result. In one instance he even came to our committee and we were able to have a round-table discussion about parts of the bill. That was hugely useful and enabled us to forge a new pathway for the bill. In contrast, some Ministers, I have to say, think that not communicating with chairs, and slagging them off publicly, is the way forward. I believe that a better way is to work closely on issues like this that matter to the industry.

Initially, the legislation began as the Energy Safety Review Bill. It was a little ambitious, and although there had been some consultation with the industry, there were 30,000 electrical workers who felt that they had not had their say sufficiently. So one of the things we found with the submissions process was that some members of the community were coming before us and getting involved in the political process for the first time. It was the first time they had appeared before a select committee and made a submission. Plumbers in their 50s and 60s, and electricians, who had never thought about engaging in politics before, were concerned about what was in the legislation. It was great to see a different section of New Zealand society coming and having a chat with us. I know they did that up and down the country with their various MPs, as well.

We found that we needed an innovative way to develop a new path for this legislation. We decided that the best thing to do was rip the bill in half and to focus on electricity in the first instance, and plumbing in the second. The aim was to get the first part back to the House earlier and dealt with, but it is nice today that we are looking at five bills together.

The original Energy Safety Review Bill amended five different Acts at once: the Electricity Act 1992, the Gas Act 1992, the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act 1989, the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976. If we look around the House, each and every one of us wants a safe environment for energy. No one here wants anyone to turn on the lights at night and be electrocuted. Each and every one of us has an expectation about the standard of safety that New Zealanders should rely on when they are dealing with electricity or with plumbing, etc.

In this legislation we were revamping occupational regulations and regimes, and most of the debate ended up being about whether to retain registration. I think there were some within officialdom who wanted to move to a tidier way of doing things and just have licensing. The argument was that that made it easier for the general public to discern the standard and qualifications of the people whom they were commissioning to do either electrical or plumbing work. Registration ended up being one of the main things that concerned those working in the industry.

It soon became clear to all members of the select committee that people who had registered as a plumber or as an electrician felt immensely proud of that registration and looked at it as the pinnacle of their qualifications. Even though some plumbers who came before our select committee had not looked at a drain in 20 years, some of these old guys said: “I’m still proud to be a plumber, and I still want to be registered as a plumber. I still carry my card.” I mentioned that in my second reading speech, but I know that the Minister is also very in tune with this. I know that Minister Duynhoven, who has registered as an electrical worker, still carries his card around in his wallet.

The Electrical Workers Registration Board said: “Registration is the capstone of our members’ qualifications.” One of the things that I think the select committee can be very proud of is that we had the debate on that issue and we retained registration for the industry.

There was also concern about the removal of classes. Some electricians said: “Well, if the Electrical Workers Registration Board is going to determine classes, we feel anxious about what those classes of registration might be.” So, once again, the select committee made the change and we retained that provision.

We also made changes to the regularity with which licences have to be renewed. It was initially proposed as 2 years, but we decided that that was going to bring too much of a regulatory burden, and that is why we pushed it out to 5 years. I think in doing that we will still preserve the safety regime that we have, as well as minimise some of the costs—including red tape costs—for many of the workers who keep our economy going.

We also made some changes to the disciplinary procedures, which I think will speed things up and make a difference for those who commit minor breaches, as well.

It is important to say some thank yous. I would like to thank members of my select committee, and as I said before, there is not a dud around that committee. They are people who have come around the table with a genuine desire to create law that works, and to listen to submissions. Although we will still have our debates, we will act on those. I thank the Minister and the officials. I think the officials genuinely enjoyed having the ability to go back and do a second and third round of consultation. I thank Evelyn Cole, Becky Whimp, Jim Green, Michael Chapman, and Scott Murray in particular, because I think they did a very good job of distilling down some quite complex law and technologies into a form that the select committee could understand.

Before this legislation, none of our members sat around thinking about drains, plumbing, and electricity but I have to say that I have really enjoyed working on this legislation. My colleague Chris Auchinvole, who came in to chat to me just before, said that he really enjoyed working on this legislation, as well.

Although I am sure there will be some things that are not 100 percent as the industry would like, I believe that this is a good example of the select committee process at work. It has developed law and has taken the time to iron out potential pitfalls, to iron out potential loopholes, and to put something in place for the industry that is simple, practical, and a recognition of the way many plumbers and electrical workers feel about their work. That is why we are particularly glad that registration has been retained. Thank you.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) Link to this

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the third reading of these bills. At the risk of revealing the extent to which peace broke out in the Commerce Committee, I want to join with others in congratulating Katherine Rich on the way she chaired the select committee. It was appreciated by all members of the committee, but I speak for the Labour members in particular. It was greatly appreciated by us, and I know that it was also greatly appreciated by the Minister. He apologised for not arriving in the House in time to make this speech, because of weather conditions outside and a delayed flight, but he did want me to repeat what the Hon Mita Ririnui said in his third reading speech on his behalf—that he did appreciate the work of Katherine Rich and of the select committee.

I want to make a few points in summing up the whole process around these bills, which relate to electricians, plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. The registration and licensing system that Katherine Rich spoke about a moment ago was a critical part of this. I suppose this is the moment when I want to pull back from some of the minutiae of these bills and go back to their original purpose. Originally, the licensing system was to be simplified somewhat, and instead of having a dual system of registration and licensing, it was proposed that a licensing system only would apply. But after strong representation from tradespeople about the significance of registration to them and to their identification as tradespeople in their respective trades, it was clear that a registration and licensing system needed to remain, for two different purposes. Registration is the recognition of a qualification. Licensing, however, gives the public and everybody who ever employs an electrician, a gasfitter, a drainlayer, or a plumber—and most of us do at some time employ those people—a sense of confidence about the competence, in an ongoing way, of those tradespeople. The licensing system, which requires regular updating, does mean that consumers can be confident that they are getting an up-to-date, skilled practitioner.

There were two other high-level issues that we have often lost sight of in debating these bills. One is the importance of the safety of the public. When plumbing, gasfitting, drainlaying, or electrical installation is carried out—whether it is in a private home, for a business, or on a main arterial route for the transmission of power, energy, or water—public safety is paramount. One of the prime purposes of these bills was to ensure that the safety of the public could be maintained through proper regulation and proper licensing. Similarly, the safety of the workers is equally important. Workers who participate in what are dangerous or potentially dangerous activities in the installation of energy services and appliances should be protected by proper legislation, regulation, and procedures.

The next item that I draw attention to is the different classes of licensing that emerged in the progress of these bills. They reflect, quite simply, the changes in technology in each of these trades. I learnt more about electrical transmission and who is qualified to work on bits of the electrical transmission process than I ever thought necessary. I thought I just flicked a switch on and it happened. The licensing of competence to attend to big electrical installations or big gas installations, for example, and to have the ability to repair, maintain, and install energy delivery across a whole range of kinds of energy, has required a differentiated licensing system, so that we know that people who are qualified in one area will not suddenly shimmy up a pylon and consider themselves to be competent in that area. That part of the legislation addresses the issue of worker safety, and it goes, again, to the question of public safety.

We discovered some problems in the course of considering these bills, and we addressed them on the way. To those who made submissions to the select committee—and to Hazel Armstrong in particular, who prepared a report for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen in respect of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, in particular—I say that we are really very grateful. The Minister expressly wishes to convey his appreciation to those submitters and to Hazel Armstrong for giving their time and their views. They did make a palpable difference to the way these bills finally emerged.

I also thank the Minister, as Katherine Rich did, for his cooperative intervention and collaboration with the select committee. It was really important that we achieved the desired outcome, regardless of where things had started or of different positions between political parties. On these bills the select committee worked as one; it was a very constructive and useful process. As a brand new member of Parliament, I think this is the first set of bills that I have seen from beginning to end and ushered through the process from their introduction to their third reading. I think that what we did was a model process, with very capable chairing, with a Minister who was prepared to listen and make some changes, and with very clear policy purposes from which there was no dissent. There was no disagreement and we were able to proceed, with the very able support of the officials.

It is a pleasure to see these bills through. This legislation will make a difference to the tradespeople involved, and it will make a difference to the delivery of energy services in New Zealand.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) Link to this

I rise to speak to the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill, which forms a part of the combined set of bills before the House this evening. This bill has a special place in my evolution in Parliament in that it was the first bill that I dealt with on a select committee. It is also special to me in that members of my family have been involved in the plumbing profession for many years and own their own plumbing businesses. So I have taken a keen interest in this bill from the start right through to the finish.

It seems somewhat ironic that we stand here today debating this bill, given the events that have happened this afternoon. I take this opportunity to thank my leader, Don Brash, for the work that he put in to help me into Parliament, and for his awesome effort within the National Party in taking us from 20 percent of the party vote to the point of nearly winning the last election. I will always remember his personal support, his help to me, and his utmost honesty. I recognise that in this debate this evening. I have a lot of respect, and always will, for my leader, Don Brash and I say thank you to him.

It does seem somewhat ironic, with regard to the events that have gone before, to be talking about the bill tonight. I echo the thoughts of Maryan Street and thank the select committee, acknowledging the work of Maryan and of Katherine Rich, who did a fantastic job of chairing the committee through a series of key issues about the bill that came right from the start. We got right through to the end on those issues,.

Some of the key issues were the negotiation of our way through the separation of the bill; registration and licensing, which is a key issue and which I will spend most of my time tonight discussing; and changes to the board, which came about from the Hazel Armstrong report.

I would like to think that members of the select committee, particularly Chris Auchinvole and myself, played a key part in the provision for the composition of the board. We were interested in the structure of that board and in making sure it had representation from the profession. The Minister, I think, will agree with me that it is all very well having Government-appointed people on these boards, but if they have not had an involvement in the profession right from day one and if they are not currently registered and carrying a current licence, it is very difficult for them to have a real empathy with the industry. So it is great to have that representation on the board, particularly with the impact that licensing and ongoing professional development will have on plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters. From that point alone, having the experience of people who have to be licensed on a yearly basis themselves will be an excellent step forward and will ensure that the continuing professional development requirements are not too onerous and that we do not lose too many plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers in the twilight years of their careers because of that.

The Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill began its life as part of the Energy Safety Review Bill, which has been canvassed tonight. The original aim was to repeal and replace the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976. As we know, the Act covers the registration, licensing, and disciplining of some of our key professions. The fact that they are some of our key professions should not be overlooked. The plumbing profession, for instance, has played one of the key roles in New Zealand in terms of health outcomes. If members look back over the last century they will see that plumbing has played a bigger role than even the medical profession in improving health outcomes for New Zealanders. We often forget the importance of clean water in our homes, our businesses, and, indeed, in this Parliament, as well as the expulsion of that waste water once it goes down the drain and the need to get it away cleanly. Ensuring the health of our communities is of the utmost importance.

So the plumbing profession is a key part of our industry and of our nation. Therefore it is important that the people who are tasked with doing plumbing work are qualified and have the necessary licences to make sure that they are performing their jobs to the level that is needed. We need to be sure that the men and women tasked with repairing drains and sanitary appliances are up to the job.

To move back a step, I remind members that the bill began as the Energy Safety Review Bill but morphed into the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill. This was for two reasons. Firstly, the feedback from plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters when the bill was first introduced into the House was not good. They felt that they had not been consulted clearly by the board, and they were confused about the requirements of professional development, particularly the non-technical requirements. All of a sudden, they had thrust into their faces the fact that they might have to do Microsoft Word or PowerPoint courses. Many of those plumbers who had been in the profession for many years just could not see how those courses related to their profession and why they would have to spend time out of their businesses—and away from doing the job that they knew best and had done for 30 years—in front of a computer learning skills that they did not feel would be of any use to them.

The second reason the bill was separated was because of the significant issues that arose between the Plumbing, Gasfitting and Drainlaying Industry Training Organisation and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. That second issue came down to a breakdown in the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation. It was highlighted by the real urgency over the number of plumbers who were not being passed through the system. In 2005 the board passed and gave registrations in plumbing to only 11 percent of the national certificate qualifiers; in 2003 there had been a 39 percent pass rate. There was major concern not only in the industry but in the wider community that the number of plumbers going forward would be significantly down on that.

It is interesting that once Hazel Armstrong was employed to do a review, it became abundantly clear that there was not just a breakdown in the relationship between the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board and the industry training organisation but also a breakdown in the way that plumbers were being financed through the Tertiary Education Commission to go through their qualifications. It had started out as the standard training measure programme where plumbers were funded at the rate of $3,000 to do their qualifications. The likes of Unitec were able to get on to a system where they could use the equivalent full-time student model and for the same plumbing outcome put plumbers through the course for $8,500, which is significantly higher than $3,000. We were seeing fewer plumbers coming through—there was only an 11 percent pass rate in 2005—yet at a higher cost to the country. So that certainly created a major problem.

So it seemed sensible that the bill was carved in two. It allowed the Energy Safety Review Bill to go ahead unimpeded, and allowed us to do a complete review of the submissions from the plumbers to try to iron out some of the issues they had, and for Hazel Armstrong’s report to come through so we could take the recommendations from that report and feed them into the bill to make sure we got the right board structure and the right accountabilities back to the Minister, and, in turn, to the general public.

I would now like to turn to registration, an issue that came through the submissions loud and clear. The initial bill recommended that registration be moved on and that we look at a licensing-type system only. However, it came through loud and clear in the submissions from just about every plumber in the country that registration was the pinnacle of a plumber’s qualification and was something that needed to be retained. In fact, I got an earful from my own brother Mark who has his own business. He had worked—in his case—for more than 3 or 4 years to get to registration level and there was no way that he wanted to see that go. The committee accepted that retaining the registration recognised the investment that plumbers had made in obtaining their qualification. So in the end we proposed the dual registration and licensing system. That detail is spelt out in Part 6.

The licensing system was somewhat confusing and this is what concerned many plumbers. There were two parts to licensing, a technical part and a non-technical part. Going forward, plumbers will have to do professional development and obtain 16 credits. Eight of those credits will be technical credits with skills such as modern pipe-fitting—a whole range of skills that relate to the plumbing job. The non-technical credits, going forward, will relate to the types of things that I talked about before: PowerPoint presentations, first aid, and a range of other peripheral-type activities that may add to the profession but that are not part of the core competency of the profession. What we learnt, however, was that the non-technical element was non-compulsory and that the plumber could do his or her continuing professional development by doing only the technical parts. Once that message is communicated through to the plumbing fraternity, there will be a lot of relief. We will not see plumbers up in arms, and I think that that is certainly a good step forward.

I will close tonight with reference to some plumbers in my own area who have now been through this. They are comfortable that the retention of registration and of licensing will be excellent. Before I sit down I will just quote Carl Symmons, a 30-year-old gasfitter, who believes that there should be ongoing competency. He believes that it is a good thing for the profession, that it will maintain the standards of his profession, and that, overall, the bill will be a good step forward.

I will close by thanking the Commerce Committee for its work, and thanking Katherine and the Labour members on the committee. Again, I acknowledge the work of my leader, Don Brash, and I thank him for everything he has done for me.

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

It was just another Wednesday in Wellington on 30 August 2006, but suddenly gas supplies in the central business district shut down after a burst water main infected the pipeline with water and gravel. The 60-year-old high pressure water main just outside Parliament, beneath the intersection of Bowen Street and The Terrace, burst, and water flooded 30 kilometres of the central city network. About 1,000 customers were affected, including even the very influential customers of Copperfields and Bellamy’s. Nearly 200 business owners faced delays. Commercial buildings, hotels, and restaurants could not heat water, cook, or provide heating or air conditioning. The hospitality industry estimated that it incurred a loss of about $5 million. It took 21 days before the last customers were finally reconnected. The fact is that 130 holes are still to be repaired in this city, now renamed the “Home of Swiss Cheese”.

The crisis highlighted the vulnerability of an ageing infrastructure. It also brought home very strongly the often invisible but vital role that gasfitters, drainlayers, and plumbers play in the maintenance of our major utilities, and the significance of workers involved in energy safety—as are electricity workers and those involved in health and safety. The industries we are discussing today are central, as part of the team keeping New Zealanders healthy. The drains and pipes that comprise our central networks take away waste as well as make sure New Zealanders have access to water that is safe to drink. Plumbers and gasfitters are a critical component of the complex web of health and safety arrangements that enable towns and cities to function.

So the Māori Party is happy to support this collection of bills, in the interests of public and worker safety. We support the proposals to repeal and replace previous provisions with improved requirements regarding the registration, licensing, and disciplining of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. The bill also contains mechanisms designed to assure the public that people engaged in these services are competent to undertake that work.

The issue of competency and safety is one the Māori Party has a particular interest in. It was because of our interest in safety matters that we took up the advice offered by the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and suggested an amendment to remove the ability of the Electrical Workers Licensing Board to issue practising licences to employers. The Energy Safety Review Bill sought to revamp the issuing of employer licences, which allowed employers to hold practising licences on behalf of their workers. The amendment we put forward was suggested by the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union in its submission to the Commerce Commission.

It is the union’s view that employer licences have the potential to compromise the safety of both workers and the public, and should be disallowed. We agreed with the union that it is essential the electrical workforce comprises highly trained people whom its fellow workers can absolutely rely on. It gives workers confidence to know that their colleagues are properly trained and able to hold their own individual practising licences rather than licences being held by the employer. We also shared the concern of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union that business costs and skill shortages may result in employers choosing to opt for less trained or experienced workers, therefore putting other workers and the public at risk. The crux of the issue is about ensuring frameworks for adequate employer investment into the training and skilled development of workers.

It was a matter of great disappointment to us that the amendments put forward by the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union—the largest trade union in Aotearoa—were voted down by all parties except the Māori Party and the Green Party. We appreciate the efforts of our colleagues in the Greens to always look out for the interests of workers.

The experience of competency and safety issues for Māori employed in this workforce also takes on another dimension in the context of cultural safety. Tāmati Kruger, working at the time for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as a project coordinator in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, has written about the involvement of Māori plumbers in the industry. He told the story of one young plumber confronted by a number of local plumbers who had joined forces to try to put him out of business. According to that young plumber: “I took a lot of Māori work off the other plumbers in this area. And with the Māori population being quite high here, a lot of it was their work. That’s what it boils down to … I feel pressured a lot of the time when I’m in town.”

The Māori Party knows that raising comments such as this one often leaves people feeling uncomfortable, but we cannot raise the issue of public and worker safety without addressing the importance of protecting and achieving cultural safety in every occupation in which Māori and, indeed, workers of all cultures and ethnicities are working. If we are committed to the health and well-being of all New Zealanders we must make it a priority that public and worker safety, including cultural safety, is given urgent attention.

On the subject of shortages in the workforce, I tell members that a 2005 Colmar Brunton survey showed that employers expected to be short of 594 registered craftsmen, 450 plumbers, 139 gasfitters, 177 drainlayers, and 132 apprentices by the end of that year. That is a total of 1,492 staff. The Department of Labour has also identified the serious and immediate skills shortages of these workers. I wonder whether anyone else in this House has ever tried to get a plumber or gasfitter at short notice or in an emergency—they are like the proverbial hen’s teeth. For evidence of the nature of the crisis one has only to think about the situation for Canterbury residents this past winter, when a chronic shortage of plumbers hugely exacerbated the hardships of below-zero temperatures that caused water to freeze and pipes to burst, thus leaving many homes without water and heating.

The Commerce Committee’s report back recommended that the legislation be passed with a range of amendments. We believe that the select committee process has addressed a myriad of concerns raised, and that the committee is to be congratulated. The report described appropriate responses to issues such as consultation, and role clarification between the industry training organisations and the board. Initial proposals to change the licensing system have been greatly modified, in line with minimising cost and maximising safety. We are pleased also with proposals to enable the public to recognise a licensed worker easily, by way of making these registers publicly available. That is consistent with the requirements of building practitioners under the Building Act 2004. We support such advances in the ongoing progress for accountability and transparency. In that line we are also pleased to support improved procedures for addressing complaints against workers, with enhanced enforcement provisions. These are all positive moves, and they contribute to our decision to vote in support of the legislation. However, we note that, as with the previous bill, there will be compliance cost increases for workers and businesses. We remain unconvinced of the real value of these increases, in terms of public and worker safety.

Finally, I tell the House that the Māori Party will support the series of bills, brought together under the auspices of the original Energy Safety Review Bill and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill, in the interests of the public health and worker safety of Aotearoa. Thank you.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) Link to this

The Energy Safety Review Bill had its first reading in Parliament on 21 June 2005, and today is 21 November 2006. The gestation of a baby takes about 9 months, so I guess it is appropriate that today we are bringing to an end two gestation periods, and we have two bills as a result. However, today, due to the split of the bill, Minister Duynhoven will end up with quins. So it is a day of good things to see these two bills at last progress through to this third reading.

I will concentrate my remarks mainly on the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill, and I say, first of all, what a tremendous surprise it was for me as a member of the Commerce Committee to see plumbers and drainlayers from one end of the country to the other—some of them well into their 50s and even their 60s—come all the way from places remote from Wellington, and, for the very first time in their lives, come face to face with a select committee.

We were confronted with quite a wave of anger from those men, for two reasons. Firstly, they said they had not been consulted in relation to this legislation. Secondly, they said that they had completely lost confidence in the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. They were, for example, very upset that they would be given competency tests, when some of them had been registered as plumbers for 30 years or more, in areas such as how to use various Microsoft computer programmes. I can tell members that many of the old-timers said to us that it was all too hard. By gosh they got our attention—and Mahara Okeroa will vouch for this—when they then said to us: “As a matter of fact it’s all become so tough that we think we’d better just give the game away.” That is not good news when the country is already very, very short of well-qualified plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, and these are the most experienced people in the profession.

Our next big surprise was to learn from the aforesaid Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill that only 11 percent of those who had sat National Certificate of Educational Achievement exams were able to pass the registration exams set by that board. The result was that some young trainee plumbers have now sat that exam for 2, 3, or more years and have still not passed it. Therefore, we have a number of young plumbers who have now been in training for more than 7 years and still do not have registration. I have talked to some of them. People say to me that they are perfectly capable young plumbers, they are doing plumbing every day, but they have not been able to get through their examinations. The employers of some of those young men also said that the situation was not good enough, and that they had lost faith in the board.

It quickly became clear to the committee that there was a completely dysfunctional relationship between the board on the one hand, and the industry training organisation for plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters on the other. There was a complete mismatch. The board had picked Australian examinations, and expected New Zealand - trained apprentice plumbers to be able to sit and pass examinations for which they had not been prepared. An example that one of them gave to me was in respect of last year’s exams, where there was a big section on ducting, which is quite common in Australia but less common on this side of the Tasman. Therefore, they basically did not know what the answers were, because they really had not been trained in that particular part of plumbing.

I will pay my compliments at this stage to Dr Michael Cullen, who, having been apprised of this complete breakdown in the whole system, very quickly had the good sense to bring in Hazel Armstrong to investigate the situation. Hazel Armstrong reported back to Dr Michael Cullen and the result of that report was the sacking of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, and the total replacement of its membership. That was a very important development, not only for our committee but also—more important—for the trade itself, to think that we now have some people who are really listening and will change the habits of that board in the future.

These realities have been taken into account in the redrafting of the legislation, which is now here for its third reading. This legislation puts in place a framework that will ensure that the dysfunctionality of the past cannot be repeated in the future. We have curbed and altered the powers of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board—which, by the way, I wish well for the future because it really has some ground to make up. We hope that it will be able to do that, because it is vitally important for the future of the plumbing, drainlaying, and gasfitting trades that we turn over a new page. We need to have good cooperation in the whole training system so that apprentices are properly trained and are able to be prepared for examinations. They will then be able to become registered and, beyond that, become licensed and go on to become effective tradespeople.

I will go back just to one point with regard to the examinations. In its report back to the House the select committee has recommended that the board and the industry training organisation—together—arrange refresher courses and, for the next 2 years or so, allow failed trainees to resit their examinations at about 6-monthly intervals. The current situation is made worse because trainees have only one chance every 12 months to sit the exam, so if they do not pass, they have to wait another whole 12 months. We had representations also from the mothers of apprentices, who said that this was a real injustice. Their sons had been working for ages, had sat their exams, and no one was passing them. Their lives were just ticking away. Some of them were moving into marriage and some of them were becoming dads—and they still had not become registered tradespeople. We heard that claim from submitters and we were asked to do something about that situation in order to give these people some opportunities to resit their exams and get through the registration process, so that they can get on with their lives. These people are the innocent victims of that complete breakdown and dysfunctionality that came into being between the board on the one hand and the industry training organisation on the other.

When we look at it objectively the select committee had two separate problems. On the one hand, we had the old guys, who were all saying: “Hey, we’re out of here; this has all become too hard.”, and, on the other hand, we had the new apprentices coming through, not being able to pass their exams to become registered. And this was against a backdrop where, as Dr Pita Sharples has pointed out, we were already short of plumbers and drainlayers. So the situation was serious and it was urgent. I agree with those who say that there was fantastic cooperation on the select committee with regard to this matter, and I might say that the cooperation level went up considerably when I made it very clear to the Labour members and to the Minister that I—as the member of the committee holding the balance of power—would not be supporting this bill unless we went away and did a complete rewrite. That, effectively, is what has happened in the months since then, and that is one of the reasons why this legislation has taken so long. We had to take the time to get it right. By the way, I should also say that the Minister was very, very supportive once the reality of the way the legislation would go became clear to all of us.

I will conclude with a few observations. I have a friend who is a radiologist. In his holidays he goes to India, where he works in the slums, practising medicine and radiology. He told me a story from when he was at university. One day, when his professor thought that the class was becoming too arrogant and proud, his professor said to the students that plumbers have done more for human health on this planet than all the doctors and surgeons put together. My friend said that all the students laughed and thought it was a great joke but, having come back from the slums of India, where people do not have good plumbing and good drainlaying—good systems—he decided that what his professor had said was just the simple truth. I also think that it is the truth, and we do need to recognise the sometimes unheralded contribution that this profession makes to our society.

I will conclude by saying that we are very happy, therefore, to support this very good legislation. I add my thanks, too, to those who have cooperated with us—the various officials, whom Katherine Rich named, and the other members of the committee, from both National and Labour. I also thank Dr Michael Cullen for his contribution, Hazel Armstrong for her very good report, and the Minister for his cooperation in the whole process. It has actually been a very enjoyable experience, and it is a good day to celebrate that we have reached this point. Thank you.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

I do not think that I will take a long call, because New Zealand First was not on the Commerce Committee, but we did follow the legislation, as best as we could, with some interest. When the legislation first came to the House it was entitled the Energy Safety Review Bill. The select committee clearly worked very hard and was very conscientious, and by all accounts every member cooperated with every other member, which is an amazing feat in itself. The select committee split the bill into two bills fairly early on in the piece, I gather, and formed the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Bill. Since then the residue of the Energy Safety Review Bill—if I can put it that way—has been split into four other bills: the Electricity Amendment Bill, the Gas Amendment Bill, the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill, and the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Amendment Bill. So, all in all, this one Energy Safety Review Bill has turned into five bills. We are debating here all five bills, and I understand that there will be a vote on each individual bill at the end of the debate. When this legislation came to the select committee we were guided by the explanatory note at the beginning of it, which clearly outlined some concerns about these trades.

The other amazing fact about this legislation is that the National Party members have had a complete change of heart; an absolute change of heart. When the bill came to the House initially—

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

I endorse the sentiments of most members today, in respect of this bill. As Minister for Building Issues I have some interest in the trades, and this regime is likely to fall within the interest of my department in the future.

As the member of Parliament for Waimakariri, I also say that, like other members, I had good folk in my constituency who had sat the exams and participated in the training process. I am a layman, and not a plumber, gasfitter, or electrician, but as a layman looking at what those people had done, and in taking advice from Mr Duynhoven and others, it appeared to me that they had indeed been hard done by. I think that in 2004, 34 plumbers got through. Given the nature of the building industry and the building boom, the trades are in huge demand, and it appeared to me, as it did to others, that the dysfunctional nature of the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation had contributed to the lack of passage through the system of good and genuine people who had the required skills.

Indeed, I think Harry Duynhoven, the Minister, deserves credit, as does the select committee, for peace breaking out. Peter Brown made a very good point when he aptly noted that the National Party had somersaulted—flip-flopped, changed its mind, had a bob each way; and I can think of several more phrases—but the chairperson, Katherine Rich, had done a very good job in bringing some common sense to the debate, as Harry Duynhoven said.

Hazel Armstrong’s report, as initiated by the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, will stand the test of time. It was pivotal in identifying the very, very dysfunctional relationship between the industry training organisation and the board. What followed from that was a number of resignations. I will not say there was a clean out, but a number of changes were made to the board that were necessary, I think, to get some new blood and new life into the regime. I suppose, if one were a tad cynical, one could say to the National Party that the process was a template for how one could change personnel, ditch one or two people, and then rekindle, like the phoenix from the ashes, an organisation that might have some aptitude, some resonance, and some relevance.