Estimates Debate — Vote Attorney-General

I am sure that the Attorney-General will take seriously what I have to say, despite his accusations during question time of politicisation. I refer firstly to the disaster response in the estimates report on Vote Attorney-General, where he makes reference to Pike River and the Christchurch earthquakes. I want to raise these issues in a serious way with the Attorney-General, because there is a serious issue going forward in terms of the expenditure of public funds. The Attorney-General will be aware that Christchurch quake families have applied to him on two occasions to receive independent legal support for the upcoming Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes.

The Attorney-General will also be aware that his Prime Minister had a meeting. I say that this is future expenditure of money referred to in this vote, and I can quote from it, so it is within Standing Orders, in case the Attorney-General does not want this debate to happen. If he does not want this debate to happen, that will be a telling comment on him and his Government. He may laugh and he may accuse me of politicisation, but I say to him that I do not really care what he says in that respect, and neither do the quake families. He can abuse members and accuse them of politicisation, but those families and members on this side of the Chamber care about trying to convince him, Mr Brownlee, and the Prime Minister to provide legal support.

At the Aurora Centre in Christchurch the Prime Minister gave a personal commitment, noted to him in a letter from the quake families’ lawyers on 23 July, to doing everything that he could to assist. I will quote from that letter: “The primary expression of concern and support upon which they”—that is, the quake families—“rely was made by the Prime Minister in his first meeting with the families at the Aurora Centre here in Christchurch. On that occasion he made it very clear that the Government believed that the families’ interests were paramount and that the Government would assist them in any way it reasonably could.” Therefore, the quake families relied on that expectation of support, I say to the Attorney-General.

One issue here is that application was made to the Attorney-General for future expenditure of public funds, given that those families are relying on the Prime Minister’s advice that he would do anything to support them as he did, and as the Attorney-General did, in making the right decision—and I applaud it and support it—in respect of Pike River. But on the two occasions that the quake families actually asked the Government to help them, they were turned down. I quote again from the letter: “That being the case, this Government’s second rejection of the quake families’ reasonable request is proving very difficult for them to comprehend. As one elderly member of the quake families group recently put it, ‘Are John Key’s assurances worth nothing? The very first time we seek assistance we are rejected out of hand’.”

I put this to the Attorney-General: I have heard various explanations, and I accept that I am not a lawyer and do not have the qualifications to be an expert in this field, but I scratch my head, as others do, when I look at the precedent of Pike River, when I look at the precedent of Cave Creek, and when the Attorney-General makes reference in a strange way to the Victorian bushfires—all in a vain attempt to justify his position that he should not provide independent legal counsel for these families. I say to the Attorney-General that I mean no malice, and I assume no malice is intended by his stance. I will do him that honour. But no one, including the families, can ascertain what the problem is and why the Government constantly refuses to apply the same benchmark as it did in the case of Pike River to assist these families.

The only excuses that have been put up are that there is counsel assisting the commission, and there is a liaison officer that will talk with the families. Well, I know that the Attorney-General has made arguments in a court, whereas I have only observed arguments in a court, but I put this to him: in a practical sense how on earth can counsel assisting the commissioner both do their job—even with the assistance of a liaison officer—of assisting the commission and give justice to those families in covering all the issues that they want covered?

I will give the Attorney-General a practical example. On the morning of the commission a series of witnesses may be called. I am sure that the Attorney-General is listening and taking this matter seriously. The families will have a series of questions that they wish to be asked. But they do not know what they do not know. As the commission progresses through the day, will they have to pass notes across to the counsel assisting the commission? Will they be in a position where they will use up all the time of the counsel assisting the commission trying to get their questions across? That is just a practical difficulty that the lawyers have explained to me.

The real issue, regardless of the relevance of the Victorian bushfires or anything else, is whether the process put in place satisfies the families. Regardless of any examples the Attorney-General might raise and analogies he may draw, the real issue is whether the proposed scheme of arrangement and the process has any chance of satisfying the families’ need to be involved in the commission.

I bring a warning to the Attorney-General: it would be another tragedy—apart from the 181 people who perished—if, because the Attorney-General has stuck to his staunch position, which is going back on the commitment that the Prime Minister made, the commission progressed and those families either lost confidence in the commission or distrusted the commission because they felt they did not have an independent voice making sure no stone was unturned, and that every question, relevant or irrelevant, those families chose to put forward was put. They mean no malice; they simply ask for representation. There is a danger. The Attorney-General may want to throw up international example after international example to try to justify his position, but the guts of this issue is whether this process will satisfy the needs of those families.

I say again to him that I applaud his position in respect of Pike River—I think all New Zealanders applaud that—but I ask the Attorney-General to put aside the legalese and tell us what mischief would be created. It cannot be an issue of money. If the Attorney-General acquiesced to those families and provided them with independent legal counsel, where is the mischief in doing that? It is not good enough for the Attorney-General to say he knows best for those families, and that what he has provided—counsel assistance for the commission and a liaison officer—is what they need. It is not for the Attorney-General to determine what those families, who both are survivors and have lost loved ones, need. It is for those families to determine that. They are now being supported by Mr Bernie Monk and the Pike River families. The media and most of the other commentators that I have read believe that they deserve that independent counsel. It would be a safeguard for the commission, because the excuse could never be put forward that every resource was not put in place to assist those families.

I ask the Attorney-General to address this: where is the mischief or the problem in providing for those families, even if he disagrees that it is necessary? He says it is unnecessary, of course. Where is the mischief created? It is not a matter of dollars. Mr Brownlee has appropriated $5.5 billion. Mr Brownlee has seen fit to double the fee to $1,000 a day for members of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel so that the Government can get legal advice, even though that is not justified. Yet Mr Brownlee, Mr Finlayson, the Government, and the Prime Minister do not feel it is justified for these families to have independent legal advice.

Presumably the Attorney-General stands by his Prime Minister and he stands by the personal and verbal commitments that he made to those families, which now the Prime Minister, for some bizarre reason, will not affirm or comment on. The families are quite happy to have those comments confirmed publicly, but for some reason the Prime Minister is not. He loves to say what people want to hear but when it comes to the crunch he has not delivered. He said he would support the families 100 percent, and they have asked for independent legal support. No lawyer I have talked to can tell me what mischief would be created if the Attorney-General granted them legal support, putting aside all the legalese and analogies the member likes to put forward in this Committee. For Pike River he did the right thing. There was independent legal support at Cave Creek. The only difference I can see between the Pike River and this tragedy—yes, one was an natural disaster—is that 181 people died, a larger quantum. Not that that should make any difference, and not that I mean any disrespect to the Pike River families.

I ask the Attorney-General to go on the record and explain in detail where the mischief would lie if he acquiesced, buried his pride, honoured the Prime Minister’s commitment, and allowed these families to have independent counsel. What problem would be created? I cannot see one, apart from allowing these families to leave no stone unturned and honour those that were lost, and to sleep at night knowing that no stone was left unturned and they had represented their loved ones. I ask the Attorney-General to address those points.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The question is that Vote Attorney-General stand part of the schedules. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know this is exceptionally unusual, but through you I make a plea to the Attorney-General. Families, I am told, are watching these proceedings now, and I make a plea to him—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not—

—to at least do the courtesy—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will sit down, please. That is not a point of order.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Parliamentary Counsel agreed to.

Vote Treaty Negotiations