Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 07 July 2011. Volume:673;Page:19889. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she agree that the test of practicability in the Health and Safety in Employment (Mining-Underground) Regulations 1999 is likely to result in different mines having different safety standards in contrast to the regulations in place until 1992? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 No. The 1999 underground mining regulations set both general and specific duties in relation to recognised hazards in underground mining. In meeting these duties both specifically and more generally mine operators are required to take all practicable steps to manage the hazards in the particular circumstances of the mine. There may be different ways for mines to meet the standard but the standard remains the same. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does she agree that a well-resourced mining company will be able to afford more safety measures and thereby find them practicable than a less well-resourced mining company? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The standard remains the same whether or not the mine is small. The employer must take all practicable steps to manage the hazards in the particular circumstances of the mine. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does she agree that mandatory rules requiring all underground mining companies to continuously monitor for the presence of flammable gases would result in safer mines than the current regulation requiring employers to take all practicable steps to test for the presence of such gases? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I do not want to speculate on hypothetical questions relating to the actual requirements but can I say those matters are subject to a royal commission of inquiry and we will be looking at the recommendations of that inquiry very carefully. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is nothing hypothetical about the question and the issue of a comparison of the two sets of standards which is what the question related to is entirely independent of the royal commission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What the member asked though was whether the Minister agreed with something and the Minister has a range of ways to indicate whether she agrees with something. With that kind of question I cannot help the member a lot further. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does she share the concerns of mine safety experts that the practicability standard in our mine safety regulations allowed a 55-metre-high sheer vertical escape ladder in the Pike River coalmine rather than what the previous standards specified which was a safety platform every 9 metres or so? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Of course we have concerns about mine safety which is why we have taken the matter of Pike River and the tragedy that happened there very seriously. That is why we have a royal commission of inquiry in relation to that. But in relation to the practicable steps I believe that that is a high standard. Indeed in the High Court Justice Ellis noted: “The obligations on an employer are uncompromising and onerous. An employer must be proactive and anticipate harm and take all practicable steps to minimise it.” 
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Minister saying a practicability standard is equivalent to a mandatory standard? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: No. 
Kevin Hague 
: What possible reason is there to wait until the royal commission reports before making urgent moves to improve the safety of workers going underground every day right now? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Following the tragedy at Pike River we undertook an independent audit of the other underground mines. There was no indication of any imminent danger in those underground mines. We will be looking very carefully at the no doubt comprehensive review and recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table this photograph of the 55-metre sheer vertical escape ladder at the Pike River mine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is a practicability standard higher or lower than a mandatory standard? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It is not a question of whether it is a higher or a lower standard; it is a question of whether it is an appropriate standard. Practicable steps have been assessed as being a high standard and in fact have been assessed as being “uncompromising and onerous” in terms of the employer’s obligations. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very simple and very direct question and for a Minister to say that is not the question is in my submission not an appropriate way to start an answer. The next part of my point of order is that given that the actual question was not addressed. She might say she thinks it was high— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked which was the higher standard if I recollect correctly as between practicability and the mandatory standard. The Minister’s answer said she believed that was irrelevant—that is what I believe the Minister implied by not saying whether one was higher than the other. She said what was relevant was—I do not want to paraphrase the Minister’s answer. To me she is entitled to do that—not to say one is higher than the other—if she believes that a comparison is not relevant to safety. That is what I believe the Minister was indicating. If I am wrong I invite the Minister to correct me. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a further point of order. I think that does goes to the essence of questioning in this House. My submission to you is that it is not for a Minister to say a question is not the question that should be asked and the Minister would rather answer another question which is what the Minister just did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not what I believe the Minister did. In fairness I believe the Minister argued in answering the question that the comparison with regard to which was the higher or lower of those two standards was not a relevant issue to safety and therefore she was not prepared to say whether one was higher or lower because in her view that was not relevant to mine safety. She was not saying the member had asked the wrong question but in answering the question—if I heard her correctly—she was saying that comparison whether higher or lower is not relevant to safety. Whether that is a good answer is not my job to judge. That is what I believe she answered and I believe that is an answer to the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will have one further go. My supplementary question did not have a safety aspect to it at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I believe these are safety standards that the member is talking about and that is why I believe— 
Hon Members 
: Higher or lower? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I do not believe with regard to these standards that the issue is where they are placed on a scale of altitude; it is a matter of being higher or lower with regard to safety and— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the very essence of the question. The Minister has lowered the standards— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —and people have died. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is definitely not a point of order. I have listened to the questions very carefully—and these are serious questions; they are absolutely serious questions. I have listened to the Minister’s answers very carefully and it is not my job to judge how good they are; it is my job to assess whether she has answered the question. It is within the Minister’s rights to argue with regard to a question asked in terms of standards relative to safety that one standard is not higher than another. She has argued that that is not the relevant issue and I believe that is a fair answer to the question. People can judge its quality; that is not my job as the Speaker. I cannot rule that Ministers should answer further just because some members may not feel the answer is a good answer. I cannot rule on that. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Why did her department take 10 weeks to conduct an on-site inspection of Spring Creek Mine after it was closed for production on the day of the Pike River disaster and does this delay give an accurate indication of the inadequate level of monitoring her department was able to carry out to protect the safety of miners in underground mines? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In answer to the second part of that question no. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister herself separated out the question. I would like to hear the answer to the first part of the question as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been taken; there will not be comment. If the member wanted the first part of the question to be answered that is all that he should have asked. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she stand by her decision outlined in a letter dated 12 November 2009 from her department to the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which states “The Minister considers that the existing legislative framework under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 already provides a good basis for effective employee participation.” and that she does not agree to a regulatory change to introduce check inspectors nor for there to be an improved code of practice for employee participation specifically in the mining sector? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes I do stand by those statements but I am also looking forward to the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry which will be able to show whether our regulatory framework is appropriate and where if anywhere it can be improved. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table the letter I just quoted from the Department of Labour to the heath and safety coordinator of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union dated 12 November 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I seek leave to table in the House an audit report on Spring Creek Mine that shows this audit was conducted 10 weeks after the disaster at Pike River. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could we just check who compiled the report? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: This is a Department of Labour report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.