Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 06 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6261. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he take responsibility for the failure of government policy as revealed in the Pike River Royal Commission report? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 My Government has taken responsibility for implementing the royal commission’s recommendations to ensure such a tragedy does not happen again. Although much of the fault for the tragedy lies with the Pike River Coal company the royal commission also makes it clear that the regulatory environment was not effective for 20 years and was not actively administered by the Department of Labour. I can take responsibility clearly only for the period for which I have been Prime Minister and this clearly took place over a long period of time. In response to the magnitude of the tragedy the Minister of Labour resigned. That was the honourable thing to do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does he accept that if the Government had proper policies in place this negligence on the part of other parties could not have and most probably would not have happened and most likely 29 men would still be alive today? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the royal commission made it clear that it was possible that these deaths were preventable. The royal commission also made it clear and correctly and legally so that the primary responsibility for health and safety rests with the company but the Government as the regulator through the Department of Labour also has to shoulder some of that responsibility. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does he not think there is a pattern here of removing sound rules and regulations such as that which led to the leaky homes disasters in the tens of thousands the  
Rena 
 disaster and the Pike River disaster and will he admit now National’s culpability in these catastrophes? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did he not travel to Greymouth yesterday to speak with the Pike River families on the findings of the royal commission and what does he say to Bernie Monk and others who are deeply hurt by his non-attendance given that he told the Pike River families “we’re committed to getting the boys out and nothing’s going to change that.” only to back down again on that promise? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: OK in terms of the first instance this was the royal commission’s report so it was important that that was presented. I obviously had a responsibility to deal with that to front that on a number of different areas and to chair Cabinet because Cabinet wanted to take that report and actually start putting it into place straight away. That was the first instance. In terms of the body recovery as I have said on numerous occasions the Government is committed to that process as long as there is a credible sensible and safe plan—a safe and credible plan. What the royal commission’s report actually says if the member chooses to read it—and I can point him to I think page 230 of Volume 2 where it quite clearly runs through exactly what the view of Professor Galvin from the University of New South Wales was when he was giving advice in the deed of settlement in relation to body recovery to Solid Energy. Professor Galvin says that the probability of getting into the mine is actually quite remote that it is irrelevant how much money is actually spent and that the risks to those who could go into the mine include drowning explosion the roof caving in and various other aspects that could threaten their lives. I have said to Bernie Monk and I say to the families that we understand completely their desire for closure and for the removal of the bodies from the Pike River mine but I think most New Zealanders would agree with me that it can take place only if we can be sure that those who would go into the mine to undertake that body recovery would come out alive—to not do so would be derelict in our duties. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did he spend so much time on television last night attacking both the company and the Department of Labour without admitting that it was National that changed the rules on these matters as early as 1992 and why does he therefore not accept the Government’s culpability because it and his colleagues are the people who were responsible? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I do not think it would be correct to characterise me as attacking people. I did paraphrase the royal commission which was quite damning of the company. If Mr Peters does not think that a company that had in the 48 days prior to an explosion 21 recordings of methane in excess of the explosion level is a company that was derelict in its duties he is free to do so. But I would also point out that he has been a Minister in Governments over the last 20 years. If he had wanted to he also could have changed the laws. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Of course they were kicking me out of the caucus at the time. That is the reason why. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My supplementary question is this—[ 
Interruption 
] It is exactly on these policies. Why does he think—[ 
Interruption 
] No do not apologise now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the right honourable gentleman. We will not get too far if this keeps going I think. Please let the member ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister think that the Hon Kate Wilkinson’s resigning only one portfolio represents a Government properly shouldering its responsibilities? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I would argue that properly shouldering its responsibilities is actually implementing the recommendations from the royal commission. In the end that is the thing that is likely to make the difference over the course of future health and safety issues for New Zealand workers. In terms of the resignation from the portfolio firstly that is consistent with the Westminster tradition. We see that more regularly. We have seen it in previous Governments in New Zealand’s history. And I would say the same thing that I said yesterday: there is no indication that the Minister through any action or inaction led to the deaths of the 29 miners but the ministry for which she happened to be the Minister responsible at the time clearly has to shoulder some responsibility so she did the honourable thing which was to resign.