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: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6353. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in Hon Kate Wilkinson as a Minister in his Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What in his opinion did Kate Wilkinson do wrong that lead to her resignation as Minister of Labour? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As the Minister said she felt it was the honourable thing to do because the report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was effectively so damning of the department that she had responsibility for and because 29 men had lost their lives. She felt that that was the appropriate thing to do. I supported her view in doing that. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given that the Minister considers she has done no wrong is it not correct that some of the key responsibilities of Ministers are to monitor their department to demand accountability and to ask the right questions of their department to check that their department is actually doing its job and to act on appropriate advice such as the letter I wrote on 6 May 2010; if he does agree that these are key responsibilities are not these the very areas where Kate Wilkinson was derelict in her duty? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not believe that accurately characterises it. I have seen the letter that the honourable member wrote. I have also seen the response. Looking at the response it is quite clear that the Minister took the correspondence very seriously. She in the report actually relied on her officials’ advice that had come out of the 2009 review. She spent some time looking at the operational capability. She also indicated that the Department of Labour had said that there was no recent change in the pattern of mining serious-harm notifications that may give cause for concern. She has acted pretty much on all of the advice that I can see from the ministry with the one exception being where it did make a recommendation in relation to small mines but the reason she declined that is that as the ministry itself said: “There are currently no mines operating with fewer than 20 employees and existing operators already have systems so the above proposal would have no impact on any current mine operators.” 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given the rejection of advice on mine safety matters from the unions from her department’s internal review in 2008 and from my letter how can he be satisfied that this Minister has the level of judgment required to be a Minister in his Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well if we want to get into the blame game let us just start having a look at a few of the facts. For a start-off Labour was elected in 1999—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A question was asked and a question as to the Prime Minister’s confidence in Ministers is a fair question. I think it would be proper to answer it and not to get into the blame game. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let me reverse the order then. In relation to the advice that the Minister had she received advice off the report that Trevor Mallard had received in 2008. She followed that advice. In the advice the Department of Labour said there were two issues. One was in relation to small mines where there was the highest risk. It said by the way I might add: “Generally the legislative and regulatory framework was sound. The operational capability of the mines inspectorate was sufficient.” and I might add that this was the advice that the Minister acted on. By the way this was on the back of the report that had been received by Trevor Mallard when he was the Minister in October 2008 and this is what Trevor Mallard said when he received this advice. It came in the form of a press release he put out in October of 2008. He said that the legislative and regulatory “framework was essentially sound” and “Both employer and employee submitters overwhelmingly supported the current legislative framework … They did not want to return to a more prescriptive regulatory framework.” This comes from a Labour Government that in 4 of the 9 years it was in office in its last term cut the amount of spending that went into health and safety. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the media statement that the Prime Minister has just quoted from which says inter alia “the quality of employees’ participation in health and safety”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Order! The House will come to order. Unless some members on my right want an early shower the House will come to order. That is sufficient of that exchange. Members have the right to seek leave and other members have the right to refuse leave. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table the draft media release of 22 October on which the media release was based. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table—can we just check for the House. The draft media release was from the Minister’s office? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No. It was from the department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: From the department. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table the communication plan which indicates the issue in relation to lack of workers’ voice. It is from the Department of Labour 22 October 2008. 
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 
: Does the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member asking the question. I say to the Ministers on my right that I must be able to hear the question. I know my hearing is not brilliant but I have got to be able to hear the question. The Hon Damien O’Connor. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I’ll control her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can just resume his seat for the moment. I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for that offer. The Hon Damien O’Connor. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: That Minister will not be much better either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will just ask his supplementary question please. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does the Prime Minister consider the Minister’s resignation from one portfolio and keeping her Cabinet position on full pay is honourable when there are 29 miners—fathers sons and breadwinners—who are dead because of the incompetence in a department that she had full responsibility for? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think all of this Parliament would acknowledge that no resignation of a Minister whether it be from one portfolio or the entire Cabinet would in any way come anywhere near giving the support that those 29 families actually deserve. But let us go back to the royal commission. The royal commission was quite clear: the primary responsibility for health and safety rested with the company. It utterly failed. The Government for 20 years relied on the same form and way of interpreting the law in 1992. Again I go back to the press release that Trevor Mallard put out. In that press release he himself said they do not want to return to a more prescriptive regulatory framework. I make the point as well that not only did Labour cut health and safety expenditure in 4 out of 9 years; it also cut— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not necessary to answer the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Department of Labour do as it undertook to me as the Minister to do: to develop in consultation with industry a programme of work to further strengthen health and safety management systems for underground mining and employee participation in that and report back by June 2009? If it did not why not and if it did why did the Minister reject that report? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I might stand to be corrected but my understanding is that that Minister received the advice sometime in 2008—I am not exactly sure whether it was July or September but he received it in 2008. In October of 2008 he put out a press release. He did not respond or do anything in that regard. In fact it was left unanswered by him as Minister. Then the incoming Minister Kate Wilkinson got from the department the advice that it would have also presented to that Minister had he remained the Minister because it had made it quite clear in the report that he had responded to in 2008 that the primary focus of concern was around small mines. The bottom line is nothing changed and there is no evidence that that member if he had been the Minister would have had check inspectors or the other claims he has been making. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was very specific: did the department develop the programme that I quoted from did it give it to the Minister and what did she do with it? He— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. I cannot judge the accuracy of the Prime Minister’s answer but the Prime Minister did answer by saying he was unaware of any evidence of that or of any of that information being presented to the Minister. The only information he was aware of being presented to the Minister was the briefing to the incoming Minister which made certain recommendations. I cannot judge the answer. That is an answer. It seems to be rather contrary to the points the member made in his question but I cannot judge the accuracy of an answer. That seems a reasonable answer to the question asked.