Inquiries Bill

I move, That the Inquiries Bill be now read a third time. This bill is intended to reform and modernise the law relating to inquiries and it largely replaces the Commissions of Inquiry Act of 1908. It was introduced by the previous Government in response to a Law Commission review of the law relating to inquiries. The Government recognises that the law in this area is long overdue for an update. Contrary to reports, this bill was not forgotten by the Government. The bill was reported back from the Government Administration Committee in 2009. Of course, the Minister of Internal Affairs then was the Hon Nathan Guy. I would also like to thank him for his work at the time. I understand that there was some confusion during the second reading of the bill, as the printed version of the bill was, of course, in the name of the Minister at the time of the select committee report.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify again that the bill was deliberately put on hold during the Canterbury earthquakes and the Pike River royal commissions of inquiry to enable us to learn from those inquiries and strengthen the bill as a result. Following those royal commissions of inquiry, the Department of Internal Affairs began developing a Supplementary Order Paper, which was close to completion when the whey protein contamination incident arose. This has highlighted the need for a robust inquiry process. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 330 and pass the bill quickly through its remaining stages in response to this incident, and I thank all members of the House for that.

The bill provides a much stronger framework for an inquiry to occur. Up until now, ministerial inquiries have been operating outside the statutory framework. The bill will ensure that Government inquiries have the powers and protections necessary to be effective. The bill provides a modern framework in which inquiries will be able to operate in the future, and we largely have the Law Commission and the select committee process to thank for that. It provides for two new types of inquiries, public inquiries and Government inquiries, while recognising and providing for royal commissions established under the letters patent. Public inquiries will be established for matters of significant public importance. Government inquiries will deal with more immediate issues, where a quick and authoritative answer is required from an independent inquiry. All types of inquiries will have the same level of powers and protections available to them.

I would like to thank members for their constructive comments from across the Chamber in the Committee of the whole House and for their support for the amendments that were put forward. Those amendments arose from lessons learnt from the two recent royal commissions of inquiry and will provide greater procedural flexibility and clarity. I intend to arrange for the publication of the Cabinet paper detailing the work on those amendments on the Department of Internal Affairs website shortly. I am also pleased that we were able to support the amendment brought forward by the Hon Trevor Mallard, which will ensure that inquiries give due consideration to the need for open justice when considering whether to withhold information.

We recognise the importance of justice being done and being seen to be done. An open process is important for establishing or re-establishing public confidence and for perceptions of independence. However, we also agree with the Law Commission that although inquiries should be as open as possible, there will be cases where their purposes are better served without formal hearings and where witnesses can speak freely without fear of public exposure. The bill provides that an inquiry can set out its own access regime, including the circumstances in which access to evidence, documents, and hearings may be restricted.

I would also like to thank Holly Walker for raising in the Committee stage the importance of participants in an inquiry having protections under the law. The privileges set out in the Evidence Act 2006 relating to confidentiality, religious communications, matters of State, and confidential journalistic sources will apply to inquiries in the same way that they apply before the courts for civil proceedings. Under the new regime, documentation from both public inquiries and Government inquiries will be subject to the Official Information Act once an inquiry has reported. However, it will be possible to withhold information on specified grounds, such as where a submission provided to an inquiry contains sensitive information. The bill also provides for the way in which the Public Records Act will apply to inquiry documentation once the inquiry has concluded.

The Inquiries Bill is intended to eventually replace the outdated Commissions of Inquiry Act. Only sections 2 and 15 of the 1908 Act, which relate to the appointment of commissions of inquiry and royal commissions respectively, are repealed by this bill. This is because a number of other statutory entities take their powers from the 1908 Act. However, the bill requires a review of the powers of these entities to commence within 5 years of the new Act entering into force, and that review will identify whether the powers required by these entities can be more appropriately provided for in other legislation, allowing the final repeal of the 1908 Act.

Can I take this opportunity to thank my team in the Department of Internal Affairs. They have dealt with this bill for a number of years now, and they are very pleased to see it moving forward and entering as legislation in the House. I particularly acknowledge the hard work of Brian Hesketh and Kate Timlin on this bill. It has been satisfying to see widespread support for the bill as it has progressed through the House. Once again, I would like to thank the Law Commission for the extensive review it carried out into the law relating to inquiries. I am pleased that as a consequence of the commission’s review and this bill, inquiries will now operate within a regime that reflects modern practices, and that is a good thing. I commend this bill to the House.

I recognise the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—after all these years! Labour supports the Inquiries Bill and I do want to start off by thanking the Minister in charge of the bill, Chris Tremain, for the cooperation over the last week or so as this has been progressed. I think it is an indication of Parliament working together in a way that it can. I think it is only a pity that he was unable to be present on Tuesday and yesterday in order to take charge of the bill, because I think it slightly lost a bit as a result of people who were not quite as familiar with it taking care of it. A note for the future is to make sure that when a bill is in his name on the Order Paper, if not actually on the copy of the bill, the member who is doing it for him says “on behalf of” the other Minister. If that was done, there would not have been the confusion that was the case.

I think it is fair to say that the Hon Nathan Guy was somewhat confused over a couple of days on this. Also, frankly, it would have been better if someone who was vaguely familiar with what was in it, rather than—what is his name—Simon Bridges, who did not appear to have any knowledge of the bill, was taking it through the Committee stage. All I am saying is that it is a pity because it somewhat undid the good work that the Minister of Internal Affairs had done on consultation and the work of the officials.

I want to agree with the Minister that the Law Commission did do a good job. Although I understand the reasoning for the Government delaying this bill, I am not sure that I agree with the logic. There have been a number of areas where it would have been better to have sorted this out earlier. I think particularly of the Rena. This sort of level of inquiry—or one of the two inquiries that can be set up here—would have been a good approach for the Rena. The ability to move more smoothly into the Fonterra issue, and into what might be now a wider inquiry, given Westland Milk Products and some other things that we are hearing about the Chinese border, would have been useful as well.

One of the things we know is that if we could have got something into place in 2009 and if there needed to be some updates, they could have been done as part of an omnibus bill or a Statutes Amendment Bill, or something similar to get it tidied up. It would have been better to have it in place. So I do want to compliment my colleague Annette King, whose sterling work it was to get this going; Rick Barker, who was prompt in getting the bill into the House; and the Government Administration Committee, which considered it well.

I think it is worth giving a little bit of comment around the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 330, because it is one that did make, not major changes, but changes that I think could be described as significant in the way they worked in the bill. What it does is it allows a bit more flexibility around the establishment of inquiries. As an example, it allows the inquirer or the inquirers to be appointed before the terms of reference are finalised. I think that is something that is useful because it means that they can effectively be on the job, and there can be some advice from them, and some work with them, around the terms of reference.

I think that if anyone needs reminding of the importance of the quality of the terms of reference, one needs only spend, as I did today, 10 minutes in the Privileges Committee listening to what happens when you have poor terms of reference and an inquirer who was not properly involved in the development of the terms of reference, to know that getting that process right is something that is important. That certainly did not happen in that case. This process can help with that.

The Supplementary Order Paper clarifies the process for appointing counsel to assist an inquiry. I think it is fair to say that that area was light. It clarifies the discretion of an inquiry to manage its process in applying the principles of natural justice. Without going too far into the conversations that the Minister and I had over the weekend, I think it is fair to say that that was the area of greatest concern to the Labour Opposition. It was the fact that there was effectively a loosening, a moving away from what had been established following the Erebus report and the Mahon report findings. As someone who thinks that it is important that people who are being criticised have a real and a fair opportunity to answer and to have their views incorporated, I was concerned, as were some of my colleagues.

But looking at it in the end, although there is a slight movement back, there is a balancing factor of being able to get a report done relatively quickly in some cases, because in some cases the findings are going to be quite important, and are going to be needed for the development of policy, the application of resources, or to avert a further disaster. The last thing that you want is a highly legalistic litigant who is being criticised being able to hold up that process by way of reviews in the High Court and other action. It is like all of these justice issues: there is a balance that sits there. This is a slight tipping of the balance away from the fairness to the people who have been criticised, towards the ability to get the inquiry done and dusted in a slightly quicker manner. But those rights still sit there.

There are changes around the ability to recompense participants for their reasonable expenses without them having to be summonsed. Previously it was sort of a weird situation where, if you volunteered to come as an expert you could not get your expenses, whereas if you were sent for and required to come you could. That is really a silly situation and I think the bill has sorted that out.

I also want to thank the Government for accepting my amendment. One of the things that—and this is no criticism of the Government at all, because it is not an area where there was any change on the part of the Government around the question of people having orders restricting access to the inquiry. So either having private sessions or secret sessions—the very fact that some people come to inquiries is on occasions appropriate for that not to be made public. It is pretty rare. The way that the bill was heading, it looked like it was a bit easier to do, and it was almost as if the inquiry could do it without thinking.

What we have done is make sure that sitting at the top of the matters that need consideration is the fact that the inquiry must take into account the benefits of observing the principle of open justice. On balance you do not go down that route, but if you do, there are some restrictions. Again, there was a discussion about the Nicholas case and a number of others where, earlier in the piece, it could well have been appropriate. If—or when, probably—Andrew Little forces Judith Collins to have the appropriate inquiry into the Rewa case, there could well be women who were raped by that man who would prefer, and will have, the right to a secret hearing and a right to have their names never disclosed. My view is that that is absolutely appropriate.

In summary, this was a good bill. It should probably have been passed in a slightly less perfect form about 4 years ago, but we have got to it now. It is better as a result of the changes, and it is something that I think has got widespread support. Thank you.

The Inquiries Bill has had, as we have just heard from the Hon Trevor Mallard, wide support in the House. Indeed, it is a bill whose time has come. It is being passed in order to reform and modernise the law relating to public inquiries, and we have heard in depth from the Hon Chris Tremain and the Hon Trevor Mallard on the background to that. What I would like to do in a fairly short address is just cover the purpose of the bill to some extent but also to see just why it is important and how this bill will be so relevant to the moment. The purpose of the bill is to address the forms of inquiry that we have. It establishes two forms of inquiry: public inquiries, which include royal commissions, and Government inquiries, which report directly to a Minister. It provides both forms of inquiry with the same legal powers and protection, maximising flexibility and freeing inquiries from procedural constraints.

Just a comment on the significance of royal commissions. It was suggested that we could dispense with those, but having sat through a large proportion of the royal commission hearings in Greymouth associated with Pike River, it was a very significant event for the people involved and for the industries involved, and it is one that is beyond—to the best of my knowledge—any form of criticism. The public place a very high level of trust in a royal commission, so it has been determined that those will be continued.

Inquiries are important, and the opportunity to make inquiries is important in order to investigate mistakes and accidents and ensure that they do not happen again; to bring accountability and transparency, often to the Government, or to Parliament, in fact; and to better inform Ministers and the public on important issues. The Inquiries Bill is important to the proposed inquiry into whey protein contamination that was announced yesterday. New Zealand has a reputation as a credible and trusted supplier of safe and suitable food to both domestic and international markets. It is very important that that is so. The well-deserved reputation is a vital element in the continuing growth and productivity of the food industry.

I had the privilege of working in the dairy industry for some 23 years earlier in my career, and also in—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: They always said the member was a cow.

Yes. Well, it gets better than that, Mr Mallard. I was also a fish exporter. I would not have exported anything that was held up on that side of the House over the last week. In fact, it is a tribute to the industry that in all the years of exporting fish every week for about 15 years, I had, I think, two product complaints. We used to do about 4 tonnes a week. I had only two product complaints, which is an attestation not of me but of the way the industry operates.

New Zealand can be very proud of its food safety record. Being proud is not sufficient. We have to know that it is good. We have to be able to inquire when things go wrong. This bill will do that and facilitate that. It is a very significant bill. I am particularly pleased to see the way it has received support right around the House. I commend the bill to the House.

I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Thank you for recognising me as well. It is always a relief, is it not, when you take a call, to hear the correct—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise that member as well.

—name attributed to you. Can I just say that it is a really pleasurable time in the House not only for so many parties to be supporting such an important bill as the Inquiries Bill but also to acknowledge the process that has been gone through, which I would commend to other Ministers to follow. There have been concerns raised by Holly Walker, a member of the Green Party, which were listened to and responded to in a respectful way. There was an amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, which was considered properly and agreed to. Both those processes have made the bill better.

I think if that happened more often and people were less entrenched in the politics of their party and less determined to score points at other people’s expense, then not just legislation but this Parliament would, I think, be a better place. So there is a lot of potential for improvement, shall we say. Certainly, the code of conduct that you yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, have proposed would also contribute in that regard.

I want to acknowledge the history of this legislation. It has been around for a long time. My colleague the Hon Annette King put it in place. The reason that she instigated the work to be done on this legislation was that it was clear that not just members of Parliament but the citizens of our country, actually, were frustrated with the lack of ability of inquiries to get the information that they were set up to get, because their range of powers, their abilities, and their opportunities were limited because of our legislation. That is not good enough. When we have something serious, whether it is tragic or otherwise, or a matter that is of public concern, the public deserve to have the information from an inquiry that would lead them to say “Now I understand what happened.”, and then we as a Parliament can ask whether we should do something about it. We have had some very significant tragedies, which I will refer to in just a little bit.

But going back to my point, the Hon Annette King set up this process because of the level of dissatisfaction with the range of powers and responsibilities inquiries had. They did not meet the public expectation. When it finally got to the House the bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee, ably chaired, at that time, by the Hon David Parker. The junior member of that select committee was our deputy leader, Grant Robertson, so you can tell it was quite a long time ago. That bill was considered, and came back to the House in 2009. I omitted to mention another person who deserves credit, and that is the Hon Rick Barker, who was the Minister who actually introduced the legislation. The Hon Annette King set up the process for looking at the policy and the Hon Rick Barker introduced it. So it came back to this Parliament on 20 November 2009. It is now the third week in August in 2013, so it has been around a long time—nearly 4 years on the Order Paper.

We have had examples this week of mismanagement of the House. The House is moving into urgency again next week, we are told. I am not quite sure whether it is on Wednesday or Thursday, or both days. But, either way, this is another example of the inability of the National Government to run the House properly. I would not presume that any other Cabinet Minister would be better than the Hon Gerry Brownlee, but he has got a lot on. I wish he would put the Port Hills zoning review as a bit of a priority, because we have just had another delay in the announcement of that. That announcement to the Port Hills residents, my constituents, was due, by the way, prior to Christmas last year—not Christmas this year; Christmas last year—so we are still waiting for that.

Some people listening to this debate might ask why the scope, the range, the responsibilities, and the abilities of panel members in inquiries are important. If you look at the two recent tragedies that we have had where there have been inquiries—the huge tragedy and loss of life at Pike River, and the massive tragedy and loss of life in the collapse of the CTV Building and the Pyne Gould Corporation building in Canterbury. There were 115 lives lost in the CTV Building—people who were just going about their day-to-day business and had no ability to understand the lack of structural strength of that building, who died as a result. The family members of both the CTV Building victims and the men who died at Pike River at the very least deserve to know every single detail. It will never bring their lost family members back, but it will give them the respect and the information that they deserve to have, and currently our range of inquiries does not have that ability.

This bill fixes that, and I think it is a jolly good thing that this Parliament is not only progressing this finally, but is doing it—as I said right at the beginning of my contribution—in such a robust way. That should give more confidence to the public of New Zealand that when there is something that is a public concern, something that should have public information, this Parliament acknowledges that and has ensured that every bit of information is gathered as robustly as possible.

It is a real shame that that ability was not available in the recent David Henry approach. I feel so sorry for Mr Henry. I do not actually know him as an individual, but he was hand-picked to take on the job of finding out what happened in the Kitteridge report. He clearly did not have the mandate that he wanted, but he called on the office of the Prime Minister, which seemed to have leaned on a few people. The political adviser Wayne Eagleson, in the Prime Minister’s office, seems to have leaned on a few people. In the end, we had access given to information about a Minister’s phone log and a Minister’s swipe card access. So the inquiry knew where the Minister went all around the building, whom he had rung, and whom he had received phone calls from. The same applied to a Fairfax journalist. I think that is appalling. If that inquiry had had the power to call witnesses and require them to attend and to make testimony under oath, then we may not have had the situation that we have now.

What we have ended up with, instead of a robust process where we actually find out the facts of the situation, is a terrible murky situation. A Minister has resigned on a point of principle. A journalist has had her professional work exposed in a very unusual way and a very unfortunate way. A senior public servant from the Parliamentary Service has resigned from his position. David Henry, who headed the inquiry, was attacked with some vitriol by the media representation and by Judith Collins—described by her colleague Gerry Brownlee today as a drama queen. That was a bit unfortunate, true though it may have been. Anne Tolley and Gerry Brownlee himself attacked Mr Henry. That position is not satisfactory, and I hope that we do not end up with it happening again. This bill, as I said, should fix that.

So why is this bill, having been started off in 2008 and having sat on the Order Paper since 20 November 2009 after consideration by the select committee, back before the House now? Well, the reasons for that are the contamination of our dairy products, the concerns of people who import them about the safety of our goods, and the desire of the Government to have an inquiry that resolves those concerns and that answers all the questions not just of the New Zealand public—although, of course, we all want to know not only that it is investigated properly and somebody is held accountable but also that it is fixed and that the problem does not arise again.

I totally support that inquiry having the ability to do that. The reason I support that is that I do not think there would be a single member of Parliament, regardless of their party, who would not agree that our No. 1 consideration must be the safety of consumers. If we sell goods domestically or export them, we must be able to assure consumers, particularly children, of the safety of those goods. At the moment, that is a little bit under a cloud because of recent events.

Labour certainly backs the desire of the Government to have a robust inquiry into this so that we can give everybody the confidence they need about the safety of our products. Our international reputation as an exporter is at stake here. We have to ensure that that reputation is protected, and perhaps even enhanced, actually, by the rigour of such an inquiry. But, more important, as I said, we have to guarantee the safety of consumers of our exports.

Our biggest company is Fonterra. It is important not just in the New Zealand economy, but it is important in our social structure as well, with the number of jobs it provides and with the number of other businesses it supports. The hard questions will need to be asked about the situations that have arisen. I am sure they will be, by the additional powers that have been given. I again want to commend the process of listening to the concerns of Holly Walker and supporting the amendments of Trevor Mallard. It is a good process and it is a better bill as a result.

💬 Holly Walker: Mr Speaker—Mr Speaker.

Ah, good. I call the honourable member Holly Walker. I have to be able to hear you, Ms Walker.

I am rather short of breath these days but I will attempt to speak loudly. I am pleased to stand to support the passage of the Inquiries Bill, to begin where my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson has finished, and to join her in thanking the Minister of Internal Affairs for the robust process that has been followed over the last few days, both to address the concerns raised by the Green Party in the Committee stage and the second reading of the bill, and also to adopt the amendment from Trevor Mallard. I agree with her that it has resulted in a better bill.

It is a bill that is long overdue, and indeed we have heard from a number of speakers that it has languished at the bottom of the Order Paper since 2009. It has now passed rather quickly through its final stages over these last 3 days. It is also good that, despite that haste, those concerns have been taken seriously. Obviously, it is politically expedient for the Government to have this in place to inquire into the Fonterra botulism crisis. It is right and good that the new rules will apply for that inquiry. It is better late than never that we are passing this legislation. It is a much-needed modernisation and simplification of the rules governing inquiries, and it does update legislation that is over a hundred years old—well past time.

The bill establishes two types of inquiries: public inquiries and Government inquiries. Although both types of inquiries will have the same powers and functions and be governed by the same rules under this legislation, there is a key difference between them, and that has been quite important in the consideration of the bill in its stages over the last few days. Public inquiries, which will include royal commissions—which are perhaps the most well-known form of public inquiry—will be established by the Governor-General and they will be functionally independent of the Government of the day in terms of how they are carried out. This is much as how current commissions of inquiry and royal commissions are held today, whereas Government inquiries will be established by one or more Ministers, and will be driven, led, and directed largely by those Ministers. So they will be less apolitical than a public inquiry.

The key change in this bill is that it extends the same rules, powers, and functions to both types of inquiries, and that is the biggest change from the status quo. Either inquiry can now be established to look into any matter of public significance, and will have the same powers, functions, and abilities to compel evidence. In our view this is appropriate because there is a clear sense that one of the shortcomings of the current framework is that there is not enough scope to set up different types of inquiries with the relevant powers for different situations. For example, there is a very big difference between an inquiry into a particular incident or issue that is aiming to get to the bottom of a series of events, or perhaps allocate responsibility for something happening, and a general inquiry into a matter of public policy—for example, the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. So it is appropriate that we have some flexibility about what kind of structure we can apply to those different types of inquiries.

Sometimes both types of inquiries will need the same investigative powers and sometimes they will not. That flexibility now exists under this bill. It provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that inquiries function well and have the ability to make concrete findings. It also ensures that they have the ability to discover relevant information and call witnesses when they need to. Crucially, it also assumes a high level of public transparency and openness in the conduct of those inquiries, and that is very important. That has been enhanced by the amendment in the name of Trevor Mallard, which has been adopted by the Government. So we support all of these things.

However, we did raise some concerns at the second reading that there may have been some fish-hooks, so to speak, in the new rules. We abstained from the vote at that stage for a number of reasons. We were concerned that by granting those quite extensive powers to compel witnesses to appear and disclose information to inquiries, the bill may have inadvertently impacted on the ability of journalists to protect their sources, or on the ability of MPs to protect their private communications with their constituents. Both of these are important democratic principles, which we strongly believe need to be protected. However, thanks to helpful contributions from members in the House, a close reading of the bill and the Evidence Act to which it is connected, and a helpful response from the Minister’s office, we have been reassured that the protections in place in the bill do afford the relevant protection to confidential and privileged information, and they are sufficient to allay our concerns about those things. The bill ensures, via clause 28, that the same protections apply to inquiries as they would to civil proceedings. That includes specific protection to journalists from disclosing their sources, under section 68 of the Evidence Act. Also, under section 69 of the Evidence Act, it includes protection for confidential information, specific relationships, and the free flow of information. On our reading, that would protect the communications of MPs with their constituents.

The third area of concern we had, which we raised at the second reading, relates to a matter of parliamentary privilege. We asked the hypothetical question of what would have happened if the Henry inquiry into the leak of the Kitteridge report on the Government Communications Security Bureau had been held under the new rules proposed by this legislation. Obviously, we have been very concerned, as have others, about the way that that Henry inquiry was conducted, and the fact that it was able to access email, phone, and swipe card records, even though it did not have the power to compel the disclosure of that evidence. We felt that this constituted a breach of parliamentary privilege and an intrusion from the executive sphere into the legislative sphere, effectively breaching our principle of the separation of powers. We were worried that if powers to compel the disclosure of evidence are extended to Government inquiries under this new legislation, a similar situation could arise in future and with the legal backing of this bill.

We still have that concern and we think that when the new legislation is in place, it will be more important than ever for the critical distinction between the executive and the legislature to be respected in such cases as that kind of inquiry, and for parliamentary privilege to be upheld and protected. But what it really comes down to is the question of whether or not this particular information in this case was protected by parliamentary privilege. We believe that it was and that it would therefore also be protected under the new legislation. However, we acknowledge that this is a live issue in front of the Privileges Committee at the moment and that ultimately the Privileges Committee will rule on that matter. Indeed, we may see legislation in this House clarifying that as a parliamentary privilege, which would be helpful, because that would set out in no uncertain terms what is protected under privilege and what is not. However, it is clear to us in the Green Party that such legislation would be the appropriate vehicle to clarify matters of privilege, not the Inquiries Bill. So for now it is sufficient for us to know that parliamentary privilege is protected under this bill in clause 28, along with all other types of privilege.

So for these reasons the Green Party will support the bill. It does modernise and update existing law and provides for a more streamlined and simple process for inquiries in the future. We acknowledge that it probably should have been passed a long time ago, instead of languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper, but it is better late than never. We also hope that these important matters of democratic principle and parliamentary privilege that we have raised during the second reading and Committee stage and, indeed, today in the third reading will be taken very seriously by colleagues across the House. Indeed, that seems to have been the case in the way the debate has been conducted, and I thank colleagues for that. We also hope they will be taken very seriously in the conduct of future inquiries under this legislation. Thank you.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Inquiries Bill in its third reading. During my previous speech I highlighted that this legislation is part of the reform process that the National Government has taken towards improving law and legislation where necessary.

Inquiries are an essential part of our democratic society. Therefore, it is essential that we have improved legislation in place so that inquiries can be done based on the need of the hour, using strong legislation. The current law governing inquiries is the Commissions of Inquiries Act 1908. As this 1908 Act is over 100 years old, some of its provisions are outdated. The amendments made over time have generally been in response to the circumstances of particular inquiries. This means that they may have resolved a specific part of the existing Act without taking its wider context into account.

Yesterday the Hon Trevor Mallard moved an amendment that was supported by the Government. As previously drafted, the bill allowed an inquiry to make an order to forbid publication of information; restrict public access to any part or any aspect of the inquiry; or hold the inquiry, or any part of it, in private. We supported the amendment to provide that before an inquiry makes an order to impose any of these restrictions on access to the inquiry, it must take into account the benefit of observing the principle of open justice. The National Government supports the amendment, as it will improve the bill and will allow inquiries to operate in a more fair and effective manner. With these words, I support and commend this bill to the House.

New Zealand First supports the Inquiries Bill and we are glad to see that the century-old existing legislation is being updated. We think it is a bit of a shame that it has taken so long to do this, and when you consider the circumstances around Pike River, the CTV Building, and the Fonterra debacle you can see why updated legislation is so needed at the present time. Overall, the bill is a good one, and it ought to improve the ways in which public and Government inquiries are established and operated, and the way in which they report. But the bill is not perfect, and I have previously pointed to some areas of concern for New Zealand First. I accept, however, that these concerns are not major issues.

With regard to reporting, clause 12(2) states that the final report on an inquiry must set out: “(a) the findings of the inquiry; and (b) any recommendations of the inquiry.” I think it should also provide for the addition of the reasons for the findings and the recommendations, and I accept that although that is probably implicit, it would be better if that was stated specifically in the clause, as well.

With regard to clause 13, I note that clause 13(1) provides for an inquiry to have the power to request the appointment of counsel to assist it in its proceedings, but in doing so, it must have regard to effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness and to other issues such as the subject matter of the inquiry and the most appropriate procedures. That sort of flexibility is very good. This provision will also allow for legal assistance to inquiries, but it must be justified in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. In practice, of course, there will need to be guidance on whether counsel to assist is always necessary and, if so, for what purposes. I note with satisfaction that the Crown Law Office is to develop administrative guidelines on the role and the appointment of counsel. That would be necessary to enable the general provisos in this clause to work in practice.

In both public and ministerial inquiries people can be summoned and can be required to give evidence or to provide information, and we think that is very necessary if we are to get to the bottom of some of the important issues raised by these inquiries. But I am glad to see that the inquiry is required to comply with the principles of natural justice, especially if an inquiry proposes to make a finding that is adverse to any individual. If it does do that, it must make the person aware and give the person the opportunity to respond to the matters that the inquiry intends to raise about that person.

The power to impose restrictions on access to inquiry information in clause 15 is another important provision in this piece of legislation. An inquiry may forbid publication of any evidence or submissions, or any report or account of the evidence, the name or other particulars concerning witnesses, and so on. It may restrict access to any part or aspect of the inquiry. All of that is fine. There is a need for restrictions in some circumstances. But before making an order, an inquiry must consider the risk of prejudice to public confidence, because if it is too secret that would certainly be affected. New Zealand First supported Labour’s amendment to make transparency a primary consideration, because we think that is what it should be. Recent inquiries have shown why that is necessary. After all, the main purpose of inquiries is to inform the public, not just the Government.

Turning to clause 19 and legal assistance for participants, the legislation states that “(1) An inquiry may, at any time, make a recommendation to the [legal aid agency] that funding be granted for the purpose of providing legal assistance to 1 or more specified persons—(a) who wish, or who are required, to appear before the inquiry; or (b) who have an interest in the inquiry.”, and the agency “may” grant legal assistance. The concern I have is that the legal aid agency has, by the use of the word “may” instead of “must”, a discretion. Hence the agency will probably—well, presumably—apply its income and capital thresholds. It would have been better, we think, for this clause to use the word “must” so that the parties who are required to appear could, as of right, have legal aid if they apply for it. We do not think that it is the legal aid agency that should have the discretion; it should be the inquiry itself that does so. So I think the legislation is a little bit defective in that way. However, it is not a major issue.

Finally, clause 30 includes offences such as refusing to be sworn or to affirm and give evidence. That is balanced by a provision in subclause 30(2), which states that a person does not commit an offence if “(c) compliance would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law … including the right to a fair trial.” Although that is an appropriate balance, I have a concern about the term “would be likely to prejudice” because I think that is an uncertain term. I would have preferred a term such as “might in the circumstances prejudice” or something like that. I think the bar provided by the words “likely to prejudice” is a little bit too high. However, again, it is not a major issue. I am sure that, if necessary, the courts will sort that out. Although New Zealand First still has these few minor concerns, we do consider the bill to be a good revision of the law on Government and public inquiries, and it will therefore have New Zealand First’s support.

I am pleased to stand in support of this bill, the Inquiries Bill, in its third reading, acknowledging the broad support for it across the House. I think that all of us have experienced in different ways, direct or indirect, the import of inquiries. They are incredibly important. I think, actually, that the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, outlined one of the key principles there. It is about an inquiry not just for the Government’s sake but for the people of New Zealand, so it is very pleasing to see that, ultimately, we will have three forms of inquiry: public, Government, and royal commission. These are well understood and will be well understood by the public of New Zealand.

It has also been noted, of course, that not since 1908 has the principal Act been looked at. This bill began from the other side when it was in Government. We have now picked up the ball and brought the bill to completion. I note that some speakers have talked about it languishing on the Order Paper. I think two points are needed there. The first, of course, is that this Government has over 60 pieces of legislation on the Order Paper, and therefore there is always the matter of priority. The second point, of course, is that we have been going through several commissions—royal commissions at that—of late. There are learnings that have been taken from them, and those have been tabled through the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 330.

So, again, I am pleased to speak to this bill, and particularly pleased to see the clarifications that have made for a better understanding of what clause 28 does around immunities and privileges. A number of us spoke to that—some at length, some with brevity. It is good to see that cleared up, with support across the House. Once again, I commend the bill to the House at this third reading.

I am very pleased to make a speech in the House to support, as Labour is supporting, this necessary piece of legislation, the Inquiries Bill, which is being rushed through. Just briefly, in response to the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, who was trying to make pathetic excuses for why the Government sat on this for so long, saying that there are 60 pieces of legislation on the Order Paper, I have to say that it is a very light Order Paper, and most select committees have a very light workload. That is no excuse. The bottom line on this is that the Government, thanks to the Hon Rick Barker, I would say, was able to pick up a piece of legislation that had been developed with wisdom back in the last Labour Government and was deemed necessary but, of course, was parked up by the National Government. This Government was lucky that it could pick it up off the ground. I think “pick up the ball” was the analogy used by the member Simon O’Connor over there. It probably got flattened and had to be pumped up a few times, really, in the last few years. But, anyway, none the less, it is still a useful piece of legislation.

It is with some sadness, of course, that we read the motivators for the Government in this. As I have said in a previous speech, deregulation by Governments has resulted in incidents and occasions that, unfortunately, have led to a lot of very negative outcomes—the worst, of course, being the Pike River disaster, and the most costly, of course, being leaky homes. There is a legacy of National Government deregulation experiments that have failed, and now we are bringing in a piece of legislation that will allow inquiries to investigate why these things happened. For some people the answer is really obvious and prevention is always better than a cure, but, none the less, it is important that we have legislation that allows us—

💬 Mike Sabin: Fantastic, but nothing ever happened under a Labour Government, angelic-like that they are.

The member over there should be very conscious of inquiries. There are lots of them going on over there at the Independent Police Conduct Authority. Can I say that we need to ensure that inquiries are effective, are a good use of resource, and deliver the wisdom that we require from them. We do not have these inquiries for retribution, particularly the ones that will come under this legislation. They will be, we hope, for the garnering of wisdom and the implementation of recommendations that will prevent incidents, whatever they are, big or small, from occurring.

The most recent one, of course, is around Fonterra and food safety. I have to say that the Speaker turned down my request for an urgent debate today on the basis that this is an ongoing matter, and it is with some sadness that I accept that reality. Deregulation of food certification, as has occurred in the dairy industry, has been very successful for a long time—I acknowledge that. I know that the Assistant Speaker in the Chair has a great deal of wisdom in the area of dairy in his region. It has performed outstandingly well for a long time, but the industry is in a new, competitive environment. It is one where there is pressure on who can get suppliers to provide the milk, and then who is going to sell into the market place. That competition, dare I say, drives new pressures internally, and we hope that it does not ever cause companies to take shortcuts, particularly when it comes to food safety. But if it does cause them to do that, then we need to have a proper agency that has the ability to monitor, to intervene, and to stop any food produce going from New Zealand that is substandard in any way.

This inquiry, of course, has been initiated by the need for an investigation into that food safety regime, and I think that it will discover that a higher level of Government oversight is required. There is more resource needed. My good colleague the Hon Annette King comes into the House. She knows full well that we need an independent agency, uncompromised by any other obligations—set up by the previous Labour Government, and absorbed into the Ministry for Primary Industries by the National Government because it wanted to cut costs and deregulate—and that provides proper oversight, without fear or favour to any part of any primary industry sector, to say that this food meets the specifications of the customer and is safe for us to export.

We saw yesterday another incident not of food safety but of higher levels of nitrate than the customers wanted and expected in a shipment of milk powder from the country. In the Chinese market, nitrates have been associated with possible contamination by melamine, when you go back. That is why China is so sensitive to it. That is why when we tested it here, we should have identified those high levels before it got on the ship. That is indeed what used to happen in this country. But what we are seeing, with the competitive pressure to get out into that market—China is a vast and growing market with huge opportunities, and we want to deliver to China the highest-quality, safest food possible—dare I say, you know, maybe someone is taking shortcuts by putting it on the boat and getting it into China before it has been properly tested.

I do not want to prejudge what the outcomes of this investigation might be, but they are very, very important. The provisions laid down in this bill have been rightfully scrutinised by Parliament and we hope have provided the best outcome. My colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, of course, put up Supplementary Order Paper 332, wanting a little more openness and transparency. I do not think that it has got through, so we are going to have to trust the Government that it will do this. We should not forget, though, in relation to this Fonterra inquiry, that it is a ministerial inquiry. The Ministers are ultimately responsible for the outcomes, and, in fact, they can discuss the terms of reference with the chair of the inquiry. OK, I am a bit uneasy with that, I have to say. The chair is, obviously, appointed by the Ministers and reports to the Ministers, and the terms of reference are, in fact, dictated by the Ministers, in reality. In this particular case, where, I guess, a lack of resources for a proper independent food safety agency is part of the problem here, will the Ministers be honest and open enough to accept that criticism—

💬 Hon Annette King: And an inquiry.

—through the inquiry—and say that we have to up the level of resources here? The reality is that our exports to China have rapidly grown, but the level of resourcing for oversight has not. Logic would say that something might occur at some point, and, indeed, it has happened very, very quickly. We have identified another problem. There probably will be others, and I hate to say that. I am a staunch supporter of the dairy industry, and of Fonterra’s position in the international market place. It is our biggest and best company and the most successful thing to come out of this economy, full stop—the most successful. We cannot afford to have the company falter or fail. We must support it, but it needs oversight and it needs guidance.

The dairy industry grew because of legislation and the oversight that that provided. It is now deregulated. The least we can do is provide proper oversight, objective assessment, and high-quality testing for all the products it produces, to ensure that we continue to maintain the reputation for the highest-quality, safest food from any country. Almost 40 percent of the world’s tradable product is in dairy. This is huge. I hope that the Ministers, in holding this inquiry, do not compromise an honest outcome because they are reluctant to criticise their own funding formula, which has, effectively, seen $26 million cut from the Ministry for Primary Industries. The Minister gets up and says that we have a world-class biosecurity system and a world-class food safety system. The inquiry into Fonterra will identify whether that is true or not. I hope that the Government is prepared to fund the resources to make sure that it does not happen again.

Again I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Inquiries Bill. The purpose of the bill is to reform and modernise the law relating to public inquiries. Currently, public inquiries are governed by the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908.

In 2006 the Law Commission reviewed this law and found it to be antiquated, with some outdated provisions. The commission therefore recommended a new law. This Inquiries Bill will largely replace the outdated Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, and will result in more flexible, effective, and fairer inquiries. The Law Commission’s review also identified that commissions of inquiry and royal commissions are expensive to run and have developed an antagonistic culture over time. Also, ministerial inquiries have no forceful powers and must rely on witness cooperation in order to be effective.

This bill will address these problems by establishing two forms of inquiry—public inquiries, which will include royal commissions, and Government inquiries, which report directly to a Minister. It will provide both forms of inquiry with the same legal powers and protections. It will maximise flexibility and therefore free any inquiries from procedural restrictions. The new legislation will provide a framework for all types of inquiries—public, Government, and royal commissions of inquiry. It will deliver due accountability for all of them.

As I said a couple of days ago, the bill has become even more important due to the whey protein concentrate contamination incident. So I commend the bill to the House. Thanks.

I rise to speak to the Inquiries Bill in its third reading. I acknowledge the genesis of this bill and the number of Labour hands that it has passed through, including the Hon Annette King’s and then the Hon Rick Barker’s thereafter. I am pleased to support this bill with Government members. I would like to give a couple of bouquets, as I have already. One is to my Labour colleagues who instituted this thing a very long time ago.

I must say that Supplementary Order Paper 330, which the Government put forward, was very good. It was a suitable improvement on the bill. I think it also represented something that you, Mr Assistant Speaker, would have an interest in, and that is this new form of Supplementary Order Paper, which I think is meant to be a readable Supplementary Order Paper. That is a real improvement. Often Supplementary Order Papers come to the Committee and we scrabble to find out exactly which bit of the legislation they previously related to. So this is very helpful in that what we really have in this Supplementary Order Paper is a tracked version of the bill in its final form. That is extremely helpful.

One of the things I want to draw attention to—and I seek your indulgence for a moment, Mr Assistant Speaker, if this sounds like a second reading speech; I do not mean it to be—is one of the things that I was interested in during my role as chair of the Regulations Review Committee, which was the extent of the regulation-making powers. I want to refer particularly to what is called an “establishment instrument”, which establishes an inquiry. That has been an improvement, I think, with the deletion of the previous clause 7 and the inclusion of the new one. The establishment instrument is defined in clause 4 as being, amongst other things, “an Order in Council …”. That is when the Regulations Review Committee begins to prick up its ears and say: “OK, how far does this Order in Council power extend, and could it be used to thwart the original intention of the bill?”.

But what has happened with this one is that it provides greater clarity. The establishment instrument, if it is going to be an Order in Council, must now do a number of things, which I think is really important. In other words, a Minister cannot simply say: “We are going to have an inquiry into this, and I am appointing so and so, and I will set the terms of reference.”

What now has to happen is that whichever establishment instrument is used to establish an inquiry must specify the matter of public importance, it must name the person or the persons appointed to be members of the inquiry, it must name the chairperson if there is more than one person, and it must specify the date when the inquiry may begin considering evidence. It must also notify the terms of reference for an inquiry. Or, if this is not done in the establishment instrument, the appointing Minister, or appropriate Minister, must establish those terms of reference by notice in the Gazette as soon as reasonably possible.

Some of this marks an improvement by nailing down the requirements for an inquiry, if it is going to fit with this legislation. That is an improvement. I think there have been some other additional pieces that have been included, and I refer to the amendment of my colleague, the Hon Trevor Mallard, which has been agreed to by members opposite. I think that also has refreshed and strengthened the purpose of the Inquiries Bill.

I think that the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 330 on the Minister’s part has quite legitimately and appropriately come from the Government’s experience with both the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes. Both of those inquiries were precipitated by tragic, tragic events. If we are able to make the terms by which an inquiry is established clearer, more immediate, and more transparent by virtue of this bill, then this is something this House should pass with alacrity. Not only has the Government’s haste on this been precipitated by two tragedies; it is also obviously in response to the need to have an inquiry into the recent events surrounding Fonterra’s products.

I, for one, am perfectly happy to advance the speed of this bill in order for the Government to be able to progress this Inquiries Bill and the amendments in it. So although we have had some concerns around some of the requirements, we recognise that Trevor Mallard’s amendment provides that before an inquiry makes an order to impose restrictions on access to the inquiry, it must take into account the benefits of observing the principle of open justice. This is really important.

I draw, for a moment, again on the Regulations Review Committee’s experience. We have had a recent complaint before the Regulations Review Committee, which is now public and has been reported on to this House, in respect of the Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal, which is the teachers conduct tribunal. The tribunal’s presumption has been—for reasons that I can quite understand but which I think, in the end, were wrong—for the suppression of identities, generally to protect victims in those circumstances. The Regulations Review Committee has come down on the side of the need for the presumption of open justice to be there and suppression of details to be made by exception and not as the rule.

This bill is in a similar vein. Trevor Mallard’s amendment reinforces that same principle of open justice and also natural justice. The default position, we believe, should be that an inquiry, the evidence that comes to it, and the findings of it should be open to the public, and that is the expectation that we have of inquiries that may occur in the wake of the passage of this legislation. So we believe that Trevor Mallard’s amendment is an important change, and we are very pleased that the members opposite have considered it to be important as well. This will strengthen the openness of information. It will strengthen the conduct of inquiries and it will allow people in New Zealand to have confidence that when inquiries are called they will have access to the content and the results. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to be the final speaker on the Inquiries Bill as it reaches its third reading. This bill enjoys widespread support across the House. It is an important piece of legislation that is of long gestation. It is ultimately about establishing two forms of inquiry: public inquiries, which include royal commissions; and Government inquiries, which report directly to a Minister. There are circumstances, such as the one we are dealing with now on the dairy industry, where we do want to have a high level of legal powers and protections, and the ability to reassure the public of the integrity of the inquiry without necessarily having the 2 or 3 years that can sometimes be involved in a royal commission of inquiry. So this legislation, I think, gives us the flexibility we need. It needs to be done, and I do not want to delay the passing of this bill any further. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.