6. Question No. 6—Pike River Re-entryHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entryQuestion No. 6—Pike River Re-entry6. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry: Does he stand by all his statements policies and actions on the Pike River Mine?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister responsible for Pike River Re-entry): Yes. In particular I stand by all the actions taken to date in fulfilment of this Government's commitment to re-enter the Pike River mine to better understand that avoidable tragedy. I stand by the approvals I have given and my support for the project which has proceeded in strict compliance with underground mining best practice and New Zealand's health and safety laws and regulations and which has enjoyed possibly the most stringent oversight by WorkSafe New Zealand New Zealand's health and safety regulator.Hon Mark Mitchell: Will any exemptions from the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 or any of its regulations be sought in relation to the Pike River mine re-entry?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes and the conditions on which an exemption can be given require conditions to be met and the principal condition is that any standards applied in order to achieve an exemption have to be equal to or better than the standards provided for in the regulations. Any exemption sought by the Pike River Recovery Agency will be because their standards they are applying will be better than or equal to the standards provided for in the regulations.Hon Mark Mitchell: Why would the Government want to exempt itself at Pike River from the very law that was put in place following this tragedy to strengthen miners' safety?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I might if I could assist that member because I think he's fallen under the influence of an erroneous and misleading article produced by Mr Gerry Morris from the West Coast when he talks about regulation 170 of the Health and Safety at Work (Mining Operations and Quarrying Operations) Regulations 2016. If I just take a moment to talk about two parts of regulation 170. One is subclause (1); the other is subclause (4). Subclause (1) is a regulation requiring a second means of egress; it is one of the issues that was examined by the royal commission of inquiry into the original tragedy at Pike River. Subclause (1) of regulation 170 does not apply to existing mining operations and the Pike River mine—because we picked up all the old consents—is an existing mining operation until December 2024. So that regulation doesn't apply. There is another regulation in subclause (4) of regulation 170 and that requires that the mine operator must ensure that at least 1 of the escapeways at the underground coal mining operation is designated as the primary escapeway and is—(a) an intake airway or a combination of adjacent intake airways;". That is the issue that the agency is working on with WorkSafe and a number of local and international experts to achieve world's best practice for that standard and they will apply for an exemption to that part of the regulation on the basis that what the agency does with the mine in order to get access to the drift will be equal to or better than the standard required in that regulation.Hon Mark Mitchell: Will the miners or workers have access to two exits from the mine as required by the regulations? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I have just tried to point out to that member and unfortunately he's fallen under the influence of Mr Morris—I should point out Mr Morris wrote to my office today and he pointed out—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —his credentials which included amongst other things that he organised Norman Kirk's visit to the West Coast—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. SPEAKER: No the member will resume his seat. This is a serious matter. It has involved a number of deaths. It is a matter of safety. The House is interested in the answer even if people don't like it and especially Dr Nick Smith will not interject again while Mr Little is answering this set of questions. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a breach of the Standing Orders to suggest that anyone in this House is under the influence of someone from outside this House. Andrew Little has done that twice now at least in his answers today. If he wants this House to treat his answers seriously on what is a serious matter then he should show this House the respect it deserves. SPEAKER: I understand the point that he is making. My view is that Mr Little did not breach the Standing Orders in the way that they were intended.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point—SPEAKER: Sorry the member will resume his seat. They are generally intended in that way to say that members are acting improperly generally for financial reward or other of that sort of influence. The idea that a member can't suggest that someone's read an article and been influenced by it is not what that Standing Order and Speakers' rulings have been aimed at. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well with respect I disagree with you. The term that was used—SPEAKER: Lovely! Hon Gerry Brownlee: The term that was used was "under the erroneous influence". Now that's expressing an opinion which is also frankly not allowed in the Standing Orders for answering of questions—SPEAKER: What! Hon Gerry Brownlee: Read your Standing Orders. It'll probably be quite instructive. SPEAKER: Order! The member's now going to resume his seat. He'll have an early shower if he keeps that one up. To suggest that Ministers can't suggest that other people are in error or even questioners are allowed to suggest that people are in error—if we ruled all of that out we wouldn't bother coming here. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker while you're still on your feet. SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee last chance and—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well my point is that the statement "under the erroneous influence" is too strong—far too strong. It's quite reasonable that any member might read an article and want to ask questions about it but then to have it thrown back at them as if to say that "Actually you're simply wrong because what you've read is wrong." is not a Minister answering a question. It's a Minister dodging his obligations to answer strictly the question. SPEAKER: All right OK. The member is erroneous. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. You've been pretty tough on the Opposition in ensuring that we do not add material that is irrelevant to the question and answer. In both the primary question and in the supplementary the Minister has chosen to have a go at a journalist on the West Coast rather than answer my colleague's question. SPEAKER: And I am now getting the impression that the member is arguing with my decision earlier that I made very clear to him about not intervening further during this question where he was absolutely and deliberately reflecting on my chairing and he will withdraw and apologise now. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'd like some clarification of what I'm withdrawing and—SPEAKER: No the member can't. If the member wants to stay he will withdraw and apologise. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I'd just love to know what offence I've committed. SPEAKER: Right. The member will withdraw from the Chamber. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker I have to get kicked out for not even knowing what you've done wrong. SPEAKER: Well I just want to make it very clear that there are some things that I'll take responsibility for. The member not knowing what he's done is not one of them. Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speakers' Rulings is the guide that guides most members of Parliament in the way in which they conduct themselves in the House. You moved to tell Dr Smith that he couldn't participate in any further points of order on this; he then did. He got upset and went out. I don't believe that it's the role of the Chair just to deny the right of members of Parliament to raise points of order.SPEAKER: Question No. 7 Angie Warren-Clark—Hon Mark Mitchell: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Oh the member has a further supplementary?Hon Mark Mitchell: Sorry Mr Speaker do you mind if I ask that question again? It was interrupted.SPEAKER: If the member wants a further supplementary he can ask it. I think we had an answer which—we certainly had an answer to the question that he asked.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We did not. I interrupted his answer because of the offence—SPEAKER: The member interrupted well after the question had been answered. I mean frankly we had a conflict: we had the member saying he wanted more the member behind him saying that he wanted more and other people saying that they wanted less.Hon Mark Mitchell: Will the miners the workers and the police officers that are asked to re-enter the Pike River mine have two points of exit as required by the regulations?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It's unfortunate that that member did not listen to the previous answer. It is not a regulatory requirement that there be two points of egress. That regulation doesn't come into force until 2024. That member knows members of the agency. He knows the leadership of the agency. He knows the level of technical and expert advice that the agency has been drawing on for all of the 18 months of its existence and it certainly has a lot more than a journalist or a part-time historian from the West Coast whose credentials according to a letter he sent to my office this morning are that he organised Norman Kirk's visit to the West Coast in 1971 and that his mother worked at Paddy's Bakery.Hon Mark Mitchell: If the miners workers and police officers asked to re-enter the Pike River mine are going to have only one point of exit and if that point of exit is blocked how are they going to get out?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As that member well knows in all the planning that has gone into this exercise the highest standards of health and safety have been applied. No person who works for the agency no miner no experienced miner and no technical expert will enter the mine if it is unsafe to do so."