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: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14536. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that the compensation awarded to the Pike River families “should be serviced by the company not by the Crown”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he believes that the Government should have no role in the compensation to the families of the Pike River miners given that the royal commission found that the Department of Labour did not have the focus capacity or strategies to ensure the compliance of the mine and that the department “should have prohibited Pike from operating the mine …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me summarise a few things from the Government’s point of view. Firstly we have great sympathy for the families. Secondly the Government has honoured all of its legal obligations as it sees them—certainly in terms of ACC payments and the like. Thirdly the Government has been extremely supportive of New Zealanders and the donations that they have made to the trust funds that were set up for the families. But the Crown’s legal position is that it sees no cause of action that could be the basis for the Government legally having to pay compensation to the victims’ families.Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister tell theAustralian newspaper that the Pike River mine a single-entry uphill mine “ ‘couldn’t have been constructed in Australia’ because it would have been ‘illegal’. ”; if so does he still believe that the Crown has at least no moral responsibility to help contribute to the compensation of the families of the dead miners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the first part of the question yes I made that statement. In terms of the second part the Government believes there is no cause of action. Obviously the legal representatives of the family are free to test that case in court. But the Government is also a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it would need to be very careful about any precedent that it might set. There are plenty of New Zealand companies that for instance go broke and actually do not end up paying redundancypayments that are owing to those workers. So that situation is another situation that the Government would have to avoid.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister accept that at least two entities of the Crown the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the Accident Compensation Corporation are parent shareholders of Pike River Coal and that they have received insurance payouts on behalf of Pike River Coal that they have not passed on to the families; if so does he still maintain that the Crown has no moral or legal obligation to contribute to the compensation for the dead miners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of those particular claims. I have made no comment about the moral position. What I have made quite clear though is that the advice that the Government is following is the legal advice it has received and that is that there is no cause of action.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister has said that the families of the deceased miners must further test their case in court does he agree with the judge in the original insurance case that New Zealand Oil and Gas the primary parent of Pike River Coal should pay the full compensation; if so what steps regulatory or otherwise has he taken to make that happen?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not my responsibility as Prime Minister.Hon David Cunliffe: What steps of any kind has the Prime Minister taken in respect of any parent entities that have together received $80 million of insurance money and paid out none of it to the families who have received only $5000 per head out of the $110000 court-ordered compensation and why does he wash his hands like a modern-day Pontius Pilate of this travesty that is occurring on his watch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government’s responsibilities rest with the legal framework that is there for any person or any family who would be in this situation and that is through ACC. The Government is not responsible for a compensation claim that was awarded against the company any more than it would be for for instance payments made to a redundant worker. If the families believe there is a cause of action they should test the cause of action.Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister have a legal obligation to give $30 million to Rio Tinto and does he have a legal obligation to pay up to $400 million in subsidies to Chorus; if he does not have a legal obligation to those two companies why does he not have a moral obligation to the families of the dead miners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I think the Government has not paid anything to Chorus yet in terms of what the member is talking about. In terms of Tīwai Point—I really have to caution the member. I think he is doing a great disservice to the families when he starts playing silly political games.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do take offence to being impugned in respect of the families of the Pike River miners when the entire push by the Opposition has been to ensure they get what is due to them which the Prime Minister is denying.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am surprised that the member has taken offence. If the member has taken offence at something the Prime Minister said I guess we have got to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw but I cannot think of anything the Prime Minister said that could possibly offend the member.