Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15118. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that corporate manslaughter legislation was “off the table”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): In a word no. I did not use the phrase “off the table”. What I actually said was I had some discussion with the Attorney-General about it and the last discussion I had certainly did not indicate that that was where we were likely to go.Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister now hedging on this matter because his justice Minister Judith Collins has said she is still awaiting advice and investigation?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. What is true is that Ministry of Justice officials have been looking at the issue of corporate manslaughter but the Minister of Justice advises me that there have been very few successful prosecutions. What I am also aware of is that the changes that we are actually making in relation to workplace safety legislation mean that they will include harsher penalties and specific duties on directors relating to health and safety including prison in some extreme cases. So it is unlikely that corporate manslaughter will be necessary.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that three-quarters of New Zealanders polled favour the criminalisation of corporate manslaughter is his reluctance to move forward not based on one set of rules for his corporate mates and another for people who get killed in mining and forestry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is—[Interruption]Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence to the word “tosser” being used inside Parliament by the Hon Tau Henare.Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the interjection but if the member has taken offence at the interjection I ask Tau Henare whether he interjected with that word; if so could he withdraw and apologise.Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I think to be fair to the member we will have the question again.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that three-quarters of New Zealanders polled want to see corporate manslaughter criminalised is this not just another example of the Prime Minister looking after his big business mates while ordinary Kiwis get killed and maimed in mines and in forests?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think that the member actually listened to my answer. The reason why the Government does not believe it is necessary is that it is already making those changes in the proposed legislation.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with Hancock Forest Management which says that our forestry safety system is broken?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not necessarily agree with that statement. What I do agree with is that this is an industry that needs significant change. I will say that the tragedies that have taken place in the forestry sector are running at a rate roughly very similar to when the member was a Minister under the Clark Government. What is certainly true is that there is a need for change and this Government is embracing that change including putting $30 million into the new WorkSafe New Zealand including undertaking an audit of all of the forestry firms that are out there at the moment and including writing to the forestry owners and lifting overall performance. Everyone agrees that nine deaths are nine too many but this has been a longstanding problem in the forestry industry.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that on his watch there have been 90 serious injuries and 30 deaths in the forestry industry which is much more than under Labour why does he then think that “writing to forest owners” is in any way sufficient?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I would have to check the member’s facts because we know that often it is not the case but—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I can say is that the Government recognises that there is a need to improve health and safety. These are changes to a sector that has been operating for a very long time under existing rules. This Government is doing something about it. Quite sadly the member was part of a Government that did nothing about it.Hon David Cunliffe: How exactly does the Prime Minister plan to make the forestry industry safer when he has ruled out an inquiry and now corporate manslaughter charges or is it just that fact that Mr Bridges says “Yeah” he says “Nah” and Mrs Collins says “Maybe”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That sounds more like a David Cunliffe speech actually. But anyway stepping back to one side the member needs to go and look at what the Government is actually doing. This is a serious area and the Government has a serious response which included an independent task force. I might say that if you look at what the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety came out with it made it clear that it did not think corporate manslaughter should be progressed. What the Government is progressing is much tougher rules in the new workplace safety legislation that will be introduced next year which will include duties and specific responsibilities on directors that can include a term of imprisonment. We are also putting a huge amount of money into WorkSafe New Zealand. We are out there working with every business in the forestry sector we have got a non-compliance audit going on and we are writing to forest owners. If the member thinks that we are not doing enough I think he is barking up the wrong tree.Hon David Cunliffe: If the Prime Minister is so enamoured of an independent task force for forestry why will he not enact the recommendations of the royal commissionon Pike River which required the families to be compensated while he washed his hands including of the corporate obligations?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I do not believe that to be correct. Secondly if one looks at the Pike River situation and the tragedy that was Pike River the Government has done a number of things. Firstly it has honoured and will continue to honour all of the ACC obligations to those families with the current estimate likely to be about $20 million. Secondly the Government is also aware of and has tried to play a part in where it can the individual trust funds that have been established which total about $8 million for those families. Thirdly I have had extensive conversations with those families and the one moral issue they have actually raised with me is entry into the mine. The Government has no legal responsibility to fund the re-entry into the mine yet we have set aside between $7 million and $10 million to do that and will continue to potentially do more if required. It is a great tragedy but it is also a great tragedy that that member is playing politics with it.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wish to say I take offence at being accused of playing politics with a matter of life and death on the Pike River miners’ deaths and if—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a debating chamber. People will throw political barbs from one side to the other. To say that a member is playing politics—Hon Annette King: He’s allowed to take offence.Mr SPEAKER: Sorry?Hon Annette King: He’s allowed to take offence.Mr SPEAKER: I just do not think that politicians can take offence at that to be honest. This is a political debating chamber. If politicians were not using political tactics I fail to see why they would be here.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave for the Crimes (Corporate Manslaughter) Amendment Bill in the name of Andrew Little to be set down for first reading as members’ order of the day No. 1.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular course of action. Is there any objection? There is.