Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7146. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is it fair that his Government is offering to acquire land from owners of insured commercial premises and owners of bare sections at only 50 percent of the rating valuation when he said 100 percent was a fair offer to insured homeowners in those areas even when they were losing tens of thousands of dollars? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I think that in terms of commercial properties they are entitled to nothing so the Government is actually stepping up and giving them a lot more. In the case of residential homeowners the Government has been exceedingly generous. The reason it has done that is to try to recognise the plight that people were in in Christchurch. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How is it fair that his Government is offering to buy out central city property owners for less than half the value of the land leaving them with insufficient funds to re-establish their businesses elsewhere under the threat of compulsory acquisition and holding up the funds for at least another 12 months? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The advice I have had from the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery is that they are looking at all these properties. They have done the best they can to come up with a proposal that is fair on the valuations. But in principle there is always the risk that some people will be left worse off. That is a statement of fact because of the situation that they find themselves in in Christchurch. But the Government I think cannot be accused of being cheap when it comes to Christchurch. We have put in billions and billions of dollars to support Cantabrians. 
Clare Curran 
: In regard to his statement on Monday on KiwiRail that “when the board informed us of the likely intention to close Hillside we pushed back reasonably strongly and asked them to fully examine their decision” what specific actions did he or his Ministers take to push back against the KiwiRail board? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I remember being in the meeting—I cannot exactly tell the member the date—with the chairman of KiwiRail. He and the chief executive came in and they gave us an early indication that it was likely that they would not find a sale for the part of Hillside—not the foundry but the other part of the business. We said to them that there would be significant implications clearly for those people and that there were real issues for those families. We asked them to go back one more time and have a very good look at the situation and be absolutely sure. In principle we tried to do whatever we could. The advice we got from KiwiRail in the end was that if we wanted to keep Hillside going then we would actually end up having to make a subsidy payment on the back of that. 
Clare Curran 
: When he said on Monday that the only way to keep Hillside going was for the Government to financially compensate KiwiRail how much compensation would have been required to build wagons at Hillside? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have the exact number but it is millions of dollars. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does he stand by his commitment to the families of the Pike River miners that recovery of the miners’ bodies would remain “an absolute priority” and “it’s not an issue of money”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is absolutely right. The member may or may not be aware that I am writing back to Bernie Monk. I will be doing that. I am visiting the West Coast next week on the 13th. The letter which no doubt will find its way into the public domain also goes to all of the families. It spells out what the Government is prepared to do and all of the risks that are there but it also summarises the very substantial risks that have been identified in going into the main workings of the mine. It references back to Professor Galvin and the comments that he has made in the royal commission’s report which goes on to say that irrelevant of the spending of any amount of money the risks of going into that mine are very substantial. That member should know that if more people get killed on the West Coast going into the main workings of the Pike River mine that would be an utter travesty and I am surprised he is supporting that when he himself knows the risks. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will that Prime Minister honour his commitment to do everything possible and will he commit to recover the drift of the Pike River mine which is by all accounts and the advice of the three independent experts quite achievable quite possible and quite safe? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It would be quite wrong of me to give the member that information before it is communicated to Mr Monk and the families but I can tell the member that in the letter the Government’s position is very clearly spelt out. Secondly I can tell the member that I will be sleeping very peacefully tonight with the commitments that I have made. And I go back to the final point which is that in relation to the main workings of the mine all of the advice we have received is that it is a very very substantial risk. If the member goes and looks at that letter— 
Grant Robertson 
: Stop trying to spin it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not spinning it. I am actually doing what is right for the health of people. 
Grant Robertson 
: He mentioned the drift. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If that member wants to kill people going in the mine— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No. Order! I am on my feet. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will wait a moment until the House settles down. This is a tense issue but we cannot have that kind of exchange. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I was very careful with my question. I would appreciate the Prime Minister’s answer on this. I was asking in relation to the drift and if the Prime Minister could answer the question of when that would satisfy my request. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. He did ask specifically in relation to the drift. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was quite clear in my answer. I can give the member an answer. I have an answer. I will not give the member an answer and the reason I will not give him an answer is that the answer is spelt out in a letter to Bernie Monk and the families and surely that member can understand that those families— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No. Order! The Prime Minister must not say that under a point of order. This was under a point of order not a further answer. I think though he has explained why he cannot answer that part of the question. I must accept that as Speaker.