9. Pike River Mine Disaster—Drift Re-entry and Video FootageRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterPike River Mine Disaster—Drift Re-entry and Video Footage9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so how?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes I do stand by my statements; and as vigorously as is required to win an argument particularly with that member but it is getting easier and easier.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement that re-entering the Pike River mine was not about politics; it's about safety."?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes because that statement accords with the legislation passed by this Parliament. For a politician to make a decision to instruct or force someone to enter that mine would be contrary to the law.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that New Zealand Mines Rescue conducted a thorough risk assessment on re-entry into the Pike River mine which considered that the risks from all hazards could be controlled to a tolerable and acceptable level including the risks of explosion and fire?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware it has done some kind of an assessment but really the only assessment that matters is the assessment of the decision maker—that is the people who under the law are personally responsible for the workplace and responsible for the safety of anyone who goes in there. The assessment of that group of people who would make the decision and take responsibility for any consequences including pretty severe liability and punishment under the law is that those risks are too difficult to mitigate.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that the Queensland Mines Rescue Service also concluded a thorough risk assessment on re-entry into the Pike River mine—in this document—which also concluded that the residual risks from hazards in Pike River could be controlled to acceptable levels of risk which also included explosion and fire?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have read a whole lot of material and I cannot comment on that in particular. But I just ask the member to consider this. It turned out to be a very dangerous workplace before it had exploded and the risks were fully understood; just imagine how dangerous a workplace it is now after multiple explosions geological fracturing and uncertainty about how those risks can be managed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If New Zealand Mines Rescue and the Queensland Mines Rescue Service have both conducted thorough risk assessments on Pike River why is he in this House talking bulldust?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said the assessment that has been the most thorough has been the one done subsequent to agreement with the families by Solid Energy. If the member can cast his mind back the Government agreed to the transfer of the mine to Solid Energy at the wishes of the families so that this assessment could be done. It was done by people who would have to make the decision and they came to the conclusion that it was unsafe for manned entry. So the Government has focused—with the families having met them in January—on unmanned entry to meet at least some of their requirements to gather more evidence in order to better understand the cause knowing full well that such an exercise will not meet all of the families' requirements. They have suffered the grief of loss of their loved ones and unanswered questions and this next project goes some way to meeting their requirements.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact Prime Minister that these reports paid for and as expensive as they were utterly and totally contradict his position that it is not safe to re-enter Pike River mine which begs the question: why he is in this House talking bulldust again?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said it is not fundamentally a matter of my position or even the member's position; it is a matter of the position of those under the law who are responsible for their workplace and for the safety of anyone who goes in it. The member may not be aware but every day New Zealanders who are painting houses who are putting boxes on shelves and who are operating machinery on factory floors deal with our health and safety legislation and they would all understand the responsibilities much better than the member does. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has it taken over 6 years for the Pike River families the royal commission of inquiry a parliamentary select committee and the public to view the footage from March 2011 when he said yesterday: "There's no reason why the families couldn't see it."?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will I think now be aware it has not been 6 years; in fact as early as 2011 there were discussions between the police and the families about the content of the videos. The videos were all turned over to the royal commission which did whatever it did with them but we understand they were taken into account and they were also viewed by those who did the safety assessment. But of course it would be much better if the families had the opportunity—having had it back in 2011 and 2012 having had their legal representative at the commission of inquiry the whole time with the opportunity to view all the video—to view it all again. The police are preparing to release all of the videos again to the families by the end of the week and I think the sooner they see the whole lot the better. Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he reject the claim that this is a cover-up when the Pike River families the Pike River royal commission of inquiry and a parliamentary select committee never viewed the video footage that he is talking about now—also confirmed by the families' QC; what do you call a person who makes a statement that they have seen it when all these people say they have never been shown it?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may want to take up the issue with the police but it is quite clear from police statements that families saw the videos. In fact I understand there was a discussion precisely about the smoking robot. It does not mean that all of the families saw them and it does not mean that whoever saw them remembers seeing them—because it is 5 or 6 years ago. That is why that is a fairly pointless argument. The fact is that they have been available: anyone who was required to make a decision including a royal commission has had the videos available. They will be available again by the end of the week; there is no cover-up.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No the member has used his full allocation.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well then point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Mines Rescue Service report in respect of Pike River and also the Queensland Mines Rescue Service risk assessment template as well—all of which rebut what the Prime Minister is saying.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part is completely unnecessary. I will assume in the member seeking leave that they are not available publicly—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not available.Mr SPEAKER: So the member is seeking leave to table those two mine rescue reports. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is not.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House."