O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Damien: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 08 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did Hon Kate Wilkinson have Ministerial responsibility for the departmental errors during her term as Minister of Labour which partially contributed to the deaths of 29 miners at Pike River? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: The  
Cabinet Manual 
 is clear that Ministers are accountable to the House for the actions and inactions of their department even if they have no knowledge of or involvement in those actions. The Minister made a decision that to honour the 29 men who died her department has to show New Zealanders that it takes its fair share of responsibility. As the Minister responsible for that department she resigned her portfolio. That was the honourable thing to do. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Why is Kate Wilkinson still a Minister in Cabinet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I pointed out the Minister did take responsibility for the failure of the department which is more than we can say for that member when he was a Minister. When Liam Ashley was beaten to death in the back of a prison van he refused to resign and said he would stick around to fix the problem. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: When would the consequences of a department’s systemic failure be so severe as to warrant a Minister to resign from Cabinet entirely? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Clearly when that member was a Minister he did not think the consequences for Liam Ashley were sufficiently severe for him to resign. In this case the Minister decided— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That Minister ended his last answer inappropriately and he started this one here to the second question inappropriately as well. The fact is that the questioner is asking about a Minister who retains one of her portfolios having resigned only the other one. That is the question at issue here and he should be asked to focus on it rather than to attack another party’s questioner when that questioner did not change the policy and the National Party— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! The point of order was fine till that last point. The member then entered into debating material and he knows he should not do that. Points of order are not to score political points. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The question asked effectively for an example of when there would be sufficient severity. I think what Mr English was doing was giving clear examples of when there was a consideration of a matter that did not merit that severity thereby allowing the member who asked the question to reach some of his own conclusions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I check with the Minister whether he has finished his answer. The Hon Bill English to complete his answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I was saying in that example that I quoted they obviously were not regarded as sufficiently severe. In this case the Minister made a decision that the results of the inaction of her department were sufficiently severe that she would resign. The Prime Minister retains confidence in the Minister and as he has explained there is no indication that by the Minister’s actions or inactions she contributed to the disaster. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given the warnings from the unions given the warnings from the department’s own internal review that point to deficiencies and given the letter I sent to that Minister in 2010 is it the standard of his Government that a Minister can remain in Cabinet despite the deficiencies in her judgment—the refusal to accept the warnings at least three times? What are the standards that deem a Minister should remain in Cabinet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member mentioned the letter he wrote. It was a considered letter and it was taken seriously and given a considered response by the Minister. In making that response the Minister relied on the advice of her department in exactly the same way as her predecessor Trevor Mallard had relied on that advice. As the royal commission report shows that advice was simply wrong. The Department of Labour was not adequately monitoring a mine that it should have known to be dangerous. 
Andrew Little 
: Does he agree that the failure of the department to take any further action on its options to introduce check inspectors or an approved code of practice for better worker involvement in mine safety which were being actively considered in September 2008 is of such gravity that when it is apparent that the failure has led to such a catastrophe the Minister should resign? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister has resigned in a way that I have to say was doing better than the example of the member who asked the original question. In respect of check inspectors and so on it is possible that those kinds of changes may have made a difference. But I think what is shocking about reading the royal commission report is that the miners were aware of the danger the company was certainly aware of the danger and the Department of Labour absolutely should have been aware of the danger and acted on it. No one did and we ended up with this awful tragedy. The Minister has in a manner of real integrity put her hand up and said that she would take responsibility for that. 
Andrew Little 
: If as the Minister said in part of his last answer the company is at fault will he support the urgent introduction of an amendment to the Crimes Act to create a crime of corporate manslaughter? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am advised that that is being looked at and no doubt it will be looked at in the context of the legislative framework in New Zealand around ACC—which I know that member supports—which is the deal with New Zealanders that there is not liability for accidents. That is one issue that will have to be taken into account.