- Date published:
3:00 pm, May 27th, 2015 - 18 comments
Categories: health and safety, national, workers' rights - Tags: credit where it's due, growing a spine, health and safety
Helen Kelly and the CTU have done a great job raising the issues of workplace health and safety. Have they even got the attention of some Nats? National MPs’ concerns prompt delay to health and safety law
Disquiet among National MPs looks set to delay planned changes to health and safety law, with the Government poised to park the bill in a select committee for two more months to try and iron out contentious issues.
Recommended changes to the law were due to be reported back from the committee this week, Prime Minister John Key said on Monday.
But after National’s Tuesday caucus meeting a well-placed source said approval would likely be sought for an extension to the select committee’s deliberations.
If there are any Nats who are standing up against a weakening of health and safety requirements – bravo. Thank you.
Government's proposed changes to health and safety laws delayed for at least 2 months because of resistance within the National Party caucus
— Jane Patterson (@janepatterson) May 26, 2015
Anne Tolley admits robust debate in Nats caucus over health and safety; PM says that's "quite wrong". Lawdy.
— stories from the city (@mizjwilliams) May 27, 2015
They’re far from trying to strengthen provisions. The delay is so they can make it less costly for businesses to play their role. Maybe some nice voluntary guidelines.
Whoever “natwatch” is, they don’t have good reading comprehension.
The National caucus wants to WEAKEN the proposals, not strengthen it. They want to spend another 2 months to delay the bill, so that when it is finally implemented, it will have less of an impact on small businesses.
Weaken is definitely on the agenda.
Obviously many nats want to weaken the legislation. But if there is vigorous debate and delays, then it seems some are resisting the worst of the proposals. That’s a good thing.
Maybe the don’t want to be berated like Wilkinson was over pike river. Even if she never figured out what she should have resigned over.
thats cause it was brownlee who should have been resigned…
headlines will read.
Coup brewing amongst Nats
Wasn’t it Wilkinson who was asked in the lobby whether she’d resign and she looked like a stunned mullet? Or am I getting my nact caucus episodes of incompetence confused? There are so many…
yes but that was cos it wasnt her portfolio when pike river happened. it was under.brownlees tenure. he cut the ribbon and drank with the board when opening pike river
Can’t have all those little foresty felling outfits or farmers bound by any inconvenient don’t kill your employees legislation now can we?
29 men were killed dead at Pike River.
They were killed by poor health & safety settings combined with the philosophy of self-interest, both of which form the very heart of National Party thinking.
This legislation is doomed to kill again.
Not you as well Vernon! I know Fairfax has few subs these days and every writer has quirks but it’s ”try to”, not ”try and”.
As others pointed out the post appears to have completely misunderstood the issue.
Ergo R – fyi ‘try and’ is not a quirk.
Normally one says ‘try to’. But if the word ‘try’ is already preceded by one or more ‘to’s, it is perfectly correct to avoid inelegant repetition by switching to ‘try and’. I taught this very point to Germans doing an advanced English Grammar course prior to a course in Commercial Correspondence translation.
Beware the minefield that is the English Language.
Otherwise, I fully agree.
Interesting point In Vino. I hadn’t thought about that.
But I’d simply arrange the sentence to avoid the ”try and” construction every time.
I’m seeing it all the time in news stories, and I’m sure it’s more to do with sloppiness than an effort to avoid inelegant repetition.
Yes, ‘try and’ without any ‘to’ in front sounds very colloquial, especially if shortened to “try’nd” when spoken. Sloppiness is not a crime nowadays, it seems. I should of remembered that. I hope your not annoyed… ☺
I agree with the Labour party’s position on a Health and safety Representative for a business less than 10 as at that size it is a work force that does not like someone other than the employer telling them what to do.
From my point of view any incidents are a pain and consume a lot of productive time and are a serious cost to me and mean that I might have to let clients down.To remain safe these are some of the courses I and my staff have to attend and these do have expiry dates and are not cheap.
Confined spaces, under your houses and in the roof is a confined space.Would you be prepared to pay a surcharge when we go into those spaces.
Heights this has two or three parts If I have to hire a scaffold or cherry picker you pay so why not pay for a confined space or the safety clothing etc.
HEALTH AND SAFETY flat fee $50? I think I would be pushing shit all the way up hill to get paid.
Health and safety is a serious issue and for to long we in NZ have ignored it but there is a cost both to the employer and employee
I’ve attended a couple of WorkSafe informative get togethers/workshops. The room was filled with bosses and H & S practitioners. Hardly a coal face worker among us. Who gets killed or injured on the job?
From what I’ve experienced ” at the coal face” is that of the near misses and minor injuries and two major injuries I’ve seen or been involved in. The rules /guide lines were all known by those involved and none of the workers were being willfully dangerous ,people that do hard physical work get injured because it only takes one bad decision or bit of bad luck and all so the psychology of going hard .
Heaping more rules on bosses will achieve not much although I’ve heard that its stopping people from wanting to move onto management.