In the House

The Youth Opportunities Package

It has been flat out the past few weeks with plenty of action in and out of Parliament. Most notable was the Prime Minister’s announcement of the $152 million Youth Opportunities Package at the National Party conference. It is a fantastic initiative that will make a big difference for our young people.

The number of young people who want a job but can’t get one has more than quadrupled in the past year from 4000 to 17,000. We need our youth in work, not languishing on the benefit. They are the future of our workforce and a long period of unemployment could diminish the potential of a generation. If we can keep youth in school, training or work then the likelihood of them drifting into a life of crime or poverty is significantly reduced.

This package aims to create up to 16,900 new opportunities for under 24-year-olds over the next 18 months. On the work front we are asking firms to provide up to 4000 young people with an entry-level job for at least six months. We will pay a $5000 wage subsidy for each placement. Other initiatives involve working with community groups and councils to create a further 3000 work opportunities on local projects, with the Government heavily subsidising the wage costs. There will also be the opportunity for 2000 16 and 17-year-olds to train free at polytechs and other private training institutions under the Youth Guarantee scheme.

It’s up to individual young people to make the most of these opportunities but we owe them a chance, and they owe us their best efforts in return.

ACE Funding

The Government has had to take tough but necessary decisions on how taxpayers’ money can best support tertiary education. Put simply, there are limits on how far Government funding can stretch. Adult and Community Education (ACE) provides an important stepping stone for many people and we have committed $124 million to support integral courses over the next four years. In tough times we have to focus that funding on literacy, numeracy and foundation skills courses.

What that means is that personal interest courses, like cooking, cake decorating and massage, can no longer be subsidised and those taking these courses will have to pay the full cost. We are in a recession and as the Prime Minister said, there are no pixies down the garden printing cash. The money that is available must be prioritised where it is needed most. Every New Zealand household understands that when your income drops you have to decide what is and isn’t affordable at that point in time. It’s no different for Government.

In the Electorate

I have been discussing the ACE funding with our local schools. Clearly this is an issue that affects many in the community and I’m only too happy to listen to any concerns. But as I’ve said, the Government has to be realistic and responsible with the funds available.

I haven’t been completely confined to the classroom though. I was fortunate enough to cuddle up to a Kiwi at Willowbank in Christchurch as it is prepared for a new life at a Riccarton Bush nursery. I have to say the privilege of being Associate Conservation Minister and getting to see birds such as Kiwi and Kakapo up close is fantastic. They really are New Zealand treasures.

Do we need a bigger bridge?

I reckon we do. I’m all for plans to install a cycle and walkway clip-on on the old Main North Road Bridge over the Waimakariri River. Not only would it improve the safety for cyclists and pedestrians, but it could be a strategic asset in the Government’s plans for a national cycleway. The bridge is the only one east of the Waimakariri Gorge available to cyclists and pedestrians to cross the river, so it makes sense to make it safer and more accessible. We’ve seen the Government signal the start of its Great Rides project and it would be outstanding for the region to join the list of cycling destinations.

I’ve been in contact with the Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency, and I’m heartened by the support. Funds have been proposed in the councils’ respective long term plans to upgrade the piers on the old wooden structure and install a clip-on for cyclists and walkers. While the project will have to compete for funding bids I plan to push for it to take place sooner rather than later.

Posted by staff in Newsletter at 12:01

With more than one person a week dying in a workplace accident, a proposal to involve New Zealand’s top business leaders in bringing down the work toll is timely and welcome, says Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson.

On August 12, Ms Wilkinson will meet with more than 25 senior executives from the country’s largest companies alongside the chief executives of the Department of Labour and ACC.

The group will discuss a proposal to form a Chief Executives’ Forum on Health and Safety that would see business and Government work together to reduce injuries and illnesses at work.

"Business leaders are in a prime position to influence attitudes and practices in their own industries, and among the smaller companies they buy and sell from," Ms Wilkinson says.

"That means they are also perfectly placed to help us stop people dying or getting hurt at work, so we can keep businesses and New Zealand working.

"Safe and healthy workplaces are also more productive and we need that productivity to drive a stronger economy."

Provisional figures released today show that in the year to June 2009 the Department of Labour investigated 55 work-related deaths.

This number doesn’t include deaths investigated by other agencies, such as Maritime New Zealand, the Civil Aviation Authority or the New Zealand Police.

The proposal to create a Chief Executives’ Forum was first aired at a meeting in May between the Minister, ACC, the Department of Labour and about 40 business leaders.

Media contact: Christian Bonnevie 021 243 8266 & 04 817 8266

Editor’s note:

Below are figures released today on the number of work-related deaths reported to the Department of Labour and investigated under the Health and Safety in Employment (HSE) Act 1992. Note, the figures do not indicate overall fatality trends in New Zealand workplaces because they do not include fatalities in the maritime or aviation sectors, or fatalities due to work-related crashes on the road. These are investigated by Maritime New Zealand, the Civil Aviation Authority and the NZ Police respectively. The figures below also do not include fatalities from long latency diseases caused by exposure to hazardous substances.

Industry        Forestry   Construction   Industrial/Commercial    Agriculture/ Horticulture     Other      Total

Year

2008/09*          5             10                         19                         12                             9           55

2007/08            2              9                          22                         20                             0           53

2006/07            5             13                          15                         21                             1          55

2005/06            7             14                          26                         17                             1          65

2004/05            1               5                          16                         24                             1          47

2003/04            9               6                           30                        15                             2          62

2002/03            7              14                           29                        22                             1          73

2001/02            2              12                           29                        25                             5          73

2000/01            7               8                             7                         17                             0         39

1999/00            4              17                            16                        17                             2         56

Year to June 30.

* Provisional figures

For official injury statistics from Statistics NZ see:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/information-releases/injury-statistics.aspx

Posted by staff in News at 15:10

A very good morning to you all, it’s good to be in Dunedin.

There are a few topics I’d like to touch on this morning that are central to your industry, most notably employment and industrial relations issues, such as the threat of blacklisting. But firstly, I thought I would offer an insight into the Government’s general policy direction.

I don’t think I need to go into detail on just how serious the current recession is. You no doubt know that unemployment is rising and the Government’s books are pretty deep in the red. Working at the forefront of the import and export industries you also have an accurate gauge of general consumption in New Zealand and the international appetite for our own products.

It’s true that we are buying less flat screen TVs, laptop computers and new cars. In a recession that is expected and to be perfectly honest it’s not necessarily a bad thing. What we don’t want is more people spending beyond their means, using cash loans and credit cards to buy goods they don’t need. It’s important that households don’t emerge from the recession with excessive levels of debt. If we can avoid wasteful spending, we will grow much faster when the fairer economic weather returns.

There is an opportunity here for the Government to review the way our economy operates and identify areas where red tape is creating unnecessary roadblocks to growth. The best way to find efficiencies is to listen to industries, such as yourselves, who know what changes can be made to lift their productivity. We have moved to implement changes to the RMA, for starters, and will continue to address areas we know are frustrating economic growth.

Aside from removing barriers, I suspect most of you know that our productivity and labour market issues remain largely unsolved. New Zealand has a high rate of labour utilisation. We have lots of people working but much lower rates of labour productivity. Our relatively moderate labour productivity growth over recent years has left us well in the bottom half of the OECD, at 22nd out of 30 nations.

We have just come through one of our brightest periods of economic growth, yet we are 22nd in the OECD. New Zealanders are hard workers. In a recent survey by the Department of Labour, 29% of the full time workforce worked more than 50 hours per week. Farmers, managers and plant workers top the list of those working long hours, which shows that New Zealanders right across the board are not afraid of a hard days work.

Yet, we are 22nd in the OCED. And it’s not like we haven’t led the world in the past. New Zealand had the highest GDP per capita on earth in the 1900’s. That seems like a long time ago but we were still 6th in the 1950’s.

The goal is to match Australian income levels by 2025 and this requires achieving productivity growth of 3% per annum. It is ambitious compared to what has been achieved in recent years, considering such a rate of growth would be more than double our recent average.

We know it can be done, high productivity growth rates have been achieved in other Western nations, including Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States. Ireland is an illustration of how productivity performance can turn around in a small nation, with average productivity growth of around 4% over the last 20 years. Of course, many of you will know that Ireland got a few things wrong recently. So working smarter is not just about copying others.

There is also a direct link between productivity and health and safety practices, which is of course a big issue for ports. There are sound business reasons for improving health and safety in our workplaces. Research shows clear links between the drivers of a company’s health and safety performance and its productivity.

For example, a recent management capability study released by the Ministry of Economic Development shows organisations that are leaders in health and safety practices within their industry also tend to have a better overall business performance.

Some of the benefits of linking health and safety to productivity are obvious. Fewer injuries mean more people keep working and reduce ACC costs. Others are more subtle. Having safe workplaces enhances an organisation’s reputation with customers, investors and employees. Designing safety into business practices supports innovation, improves quality and efficiency.

Just this week the Department of Labour released figures showing we are suffering over one death each week at work – a total of 55 people in the past year. That doesn’t even take into account a number of other people killed working at sea or while driving. Then there are also the thousands more people injured at work, who have to stay home on ACC. Every single one of these incidents has a cost on the workplace; emotional, physical and financial.

Clearly, safety and productivity go hand in hand. The consequences of an injury or death can be huge for a business, with its reputation, morale and productivity all vulnerable to taking a hit. So it’s good to see that a proposal for work on a Business Safety Case has been accepted and will be developed with Maritime New Zealand, ACC and the National Ports Health and Safety Forum. I met with a number of CEOs yesterday to discuss ways the Government can work with business to strengthen safety practices in New Zealand. Preventing accidents is not just the responsibility of those on the ground, it begins at the top.

One of the big threats to productivity on your patch is industrial action and conflict. There has been talk of threats of blacklisting of ports if they do not agree to certain working arrangements. To be perfectly frank, any self-respecting union should be embarrassed to stoop to those measures. I want to assure you that I would have absolutely no tolerance for any such behaviour. If anybody does attempt to undermine New Zealand’s ports they will find no favour with this Government. It is important that employers and unions can engage constructively and in good faith. Those who have good relations and arrangements with one union should not have to put up with strong-arm antics from another.

Industrial action has a lengthy history on the waterfront. It is on both sides to seek resolutions and enter negotiations in good faith. A unionised workforce has the right to strike that is perfectly legitimate. This Government isn’t going to remove that right.

The Court of Appeal has just ruled in favour of the EPMU against an employer who had used other staff to do the duties of workers lawfully on strike. I haven’t had a chance to read the full judgement just yet, but I understand it might have created some uncertainty for employers as to what actions they can take to fill the gap left by striking workers.

The employer in this case believed, and was backed by the Employment Court, that he could direct his workers to do the tasks as their contracts set out that they could undertake "any other duties as directed". The Court of Appeal decision is based around the wording of section 97 and emphasises that an employer cannot direct an employee to do the work of a striking employee. I can appreciate that all the legal interpretations in cases like this can be frustrating for employers, especially if the case sets a general precedent. To go into greater detail now might get a bit tedious, but I am happy to talk further about it later should any of you have questions.

Work is continuing on opening up collective employment agreements to the general workforce. Currently, as you know, only unions can engage in collective bargaining and we have seen workers go through the rigmarole of forming a union in order to negotiate as a group. To me, that seems pointless. If workers want to operate under a collective but don’t want to join an established union, they should be able to do so. The Department of Labour is going through the detail at the moment, so I expect to have more information later in the year. I will of course be engaging with the unions on this, as they have some strong opinions on the proposal.

The difficulty many find with our employment framework, such as collective bargaining legislation, is that it is overly bureaucratic. We need to have a legislative framework that is flexible. The 90 day trial period is a good example of legislation that offers encouragement to employers and opportunities to employees. A business that has the confidence to take on staff is surely more valuable than one that won’t because of personal grievance concerns. I have been asked on several occasions whether the Government intends to extend the trial period beyond small businesses, as is the case in most developed nations.

Right now, that is not something I am actively looking at, but I’m also not ruling it out for the future. Australia, for example, recently made changes to its employment legislation under the Labor Government, but it still employs 12 month trial periods for small businesses of 15 or less staff and six month trial periods for larger firms. There is limited data available so far on the impact of the 90 day trial period here, but it certainly hasn’t led to the widespread abuse of workers that Labour and the unions wailed about. I expect that as we move out of the recession trial periods will be used effectively as small businesses look to take on more staff.

Further on the legislative front, good employment law should not impose frivolous costs on business or be so convoluted that judgements end up in our Supreme Court. The Holidays Act is a good example of a piece of legislation that does cause such problems. Finding the right solution is no doubt going to take some thinking. Issues such as relevant daily pay should not require a masters’ degree in mathematics. Holiday pay should be easy to work out and it should not encourage gaming. Business New Zealand and the CTU have produced a range of questions for public consultation, with submissions closing next Friday.

If you haven’t already, I would encourage you to have your say on the changes you want to see in the Holidays Act. The terms of reference have been widely publicised and the media have generally been pretty reasonable with their coverage. The Opposition, of course, continues to trumpet the same tired line that we’re out to abuse the nation’s workforce. Thankfully the CTU is more constructive and is helping to shape the recommendations. I expect to have a final report on my desk before December so that legislation can be introduced to the house sooner rather than later.

If there is anything I haven’t covered or if you want to know more, I believe I have time now for a few questions.

Posted by staff in Speech at 13:36

Public submissions on the Draft Code of Employment Practice on Infant Feeding will be welcomed from today, Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson has announced.

"The purpose of the Code is to provide employers with guidance on how to fulfil their obligations concerning the provision of breastfeeding breaks and facilities under the Employment Relations Act 2000," Ms Wilkinson says.

The Code includes suggestions about the types of issues that should be considered when negotiating an arrangement for infant feeding with an employee, and determining what arrangement would be reasonable and practicable in the circumstances.

More information can be found on the Department of Labour website at http://dol.govt.nz/consultation/infant-feeding/index.asp.

Submissions close at 5pm on Monday 7 September.

They can be emailed to infantfeeding@dol.govt.nz or sent by mail to:

Infant Feeding (DX SR57080)

Department of Labour

PO Box 3705

WELLINGTON

Media contact: Christian Bonnevie 021 243 8266 & 04 817 8266

Posted by staff in News at 15:06

It is a pleasure to be here today to address your annual conference and to be presenting the PRINCE and Responsible Care awards. These awards are an excellent way to recognise leadership and looking at the agenda I can see that you know your priorities. You have the awards first and then you get down to the heavy stuff.

With subjects such as "meeting the hazardous substance challenge", "managing risk" and "an environmental protection authority" – these are serious issues.

Awards are a great example of an industry celebrating and with that, demonstrating leadership in improving workplace and environmental health and safety. It is clear and heartening that you support the Government’s aim of reducing harm to our people and our environment.

Despite huge gains in health and safety New Zealanders still have far too many injuries in the workplace when compared with other first-world nations. And the fact that each year 80 to 100 New Zealanders don’t go home to their families at the end of a shift, is sobering. We kill and injury too many people at work – not only when compared with other fist world countries. Quite simply, we kill and injure too many people at work.

I am told that the financial and social cost of our work toll is high. At an estimated $16 billion a year, that is a massive sum in anyone’s language, around 10% of GDP. I know Bernard Hickey is discussing Economic Nirvana later this morning. I don’t know what Bernard will talk about but I do know that as a country we cannot afford to lose 10% of our GDP due to injury.

When I look at the chemical industry, and when I see programmes such as your performance accreditation programme, it shows me that safety, health and environmental protection is being taken seriously by this industry. It is this sort of leadership that we as a country greatly need from our major industries.

What I also recognise is that industry leaders are in a prime position to positively influence health and safety practices, not just in their own workplaces but across the supply chains and the communities in which they operate. Leadership by our senior executives on this issue is critical if we are to bring down rates of illness and injury.

In this regard the Chemical Industry Council is somewhat unique. I am told that the Council represents more than 90% of our national and international manufacturers and importers together with a cross section of major users. As you represent the voice of the industry, my expectations are high.

This Government knows that when we all work together we achieve outcomes. I am pleased to see the Department and the Council already have a productive relationship and that together you are supporting best practice in the chemical industry.

I want to encourage this and I know that Maarten Quivooy will be talking later about what the Department hopes to achieve through the application of modern regulatory practice.

I am aware that some industries haven’t quite yet developed such a productive relationship with the Department. Some of you will have heard that I recently attended a health and safety forum involving a group of New Zealand CEOs. This was the first government-industry meeting of its kind and is a further example of how this Government want the country’s largest firms to explore ways that business and government agencies can work together.

I was heartened by the strong commitment these leaders made to work together on an ongoing basis. I will meet with them again later this month when some of the business leaders will present initial ideas on how this CEO forum might work in future.

The CEO forum not only reflects how the Government wants to engage with industry but also reflects a change that is taking place in the way the Department of Labour works with industries. Many of you will have read about how the Department is moving to strengthen its role as an effective and modern regulator. Modern, more effective regulators promote and encourage voluntary compliance by working with the industries and people they regulate. Maarten has talked to me about using enforcement strategically, holding serious and repeat offenders to account but equally, using the right tool for the situation.

I know that the Chemical Industry Council already works closely with various regulatory bodies to help ensure the industry has the right tools and that the councils range of tools enables employers to demonstrate a superior standard of health and safety performance. I am particularly pleased that these tools are operating for SMEs as often these are the businesses that find it most difficult.

I appreciate that I am talking to the converted but I want to emphasise the link between health and safety and productivity. I have already mentioned the cost. Too often health and safety is seen solely as an expense, as a cost - the cost of buying the right gear, the cost of training staff etc.

When we start to see health and safety in light of productivity, then we will be making the right steps. There are sound business reasons for improving health and safety in our workplaces and the research shows clear links between the drivers of a company’s health and safety performance and its productivity.

I know of a recent management capability study released by the Ministry of Economic Development that showed organisations that are leaders in health and safety practices within their industry also tend to have a better overall business performance. Investing in high performance workplace practices is good for health and safety and good for productivity.

Some of the benefits of linking health and safety to productivity are obvious. Fewer injuries mean more people keep working and reduce ACC costs. However, many of the benefits are more subtle. Having safe workplaces enhances an organisation’s reputation with customers, investors and employees. Designing safety into business practices supports innovation, improves quality and efficiency.

Clearly, safety is not a trade-off for productivity. The two go hand in hand. In tough economic times, such as we face now, safety initiatives can almost be overlooked or ignored due to perceived or real compliance costs. If a business is struggling they might look for short cuts or simply let something lapse that they wouldn’t normally. Compliance costs are an issue on many fronts but the cost of a workplace accident is far greater. The consequences can be huge for a business; its reputation, the morale and its productivity are all potentially vulnerable.

The Council’s involvement in the Responsible Care/PRINCE awards tells me that your industry understands the link between workplace health and safety and better business performance.

I hope you will join me in spreading this news down through your supply chains.

Before I close I want to put a final word in for the review of the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy. As you know the strategy aims to ensure that public and private sector efforts to reduce the human and financial toll of workplace injuries are well targeted and coordinated. Its vision is healthy people in safe and productive workplaces.

The Strategy, which has been operating for the last three years, has a 10 year timeframe. The current review is one of three priorities agreed between me and the Prime Minister for the Labour portfolio.

The review process – which involved seeking feedback from industry organisations like the council – was designed to ensure a broad spectrum of opinion and input was captured. There was a notably high level of consensus about workplace health and safety’s progress, barriers and future priorities. This level of consensus provides a credible foundation from which to consider the review’s findings.

The feedback received has affirmed the need for the Strategy. There was also widespread agreement about the need for clearer direction in order to bridge the gap between the higher level framework and implementation activities.

I anticipate that when it is completed it will provide a practical agenda for action in improving workplace health and safety. I trust that the chemical industry and the council will continue to play an active part.

Thank you.

It now gives me great pleasure to present the PRINCE and Responsible Care awards.

Posted by staff in Speech at 13:33