Inquiries Bill

This is the debate on clauses 6 to 9.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Are you seeking the call?

Mr Chairman, that has got to be the first time that people have thought that I have spoken too quietly. This is extraordinary. I think that is worth recording in Hansard this evening.

I am wishing to take a call on Part 2 of the Inquiries Bill. As you have quite rightly pointed out, this covers just clauses 6, 7, 8, and 9, and they are pretty operational, in a way, but there are just a couple of points that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee. The first, in clause 6, relates to the “Types of inquiry”. This was discussed in relation to the purpose of the bill as well, but it is obviously relevant to Part 2.

The purpose of this legislation is to look at the sorts of inquiries that we are able to set up in New Zealand, the scope of them, their rights, their privileges, their ability to call witnesses, etc. This part, Part 2, goes further into that area. Let me give you an example. It specifies the types of inquiries that can be undertaken under this bill: “Royal commissions established under the authority of the Letters Patent constituting the office of the Governor-General”; “public inquiries, which are established ...”; “government inquiries, which are established ...”; “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, establish a public inquiry for the purpose of inquiring into, and reporting on, any matter of public importance”; and a Minister can, just by a Gazette notification, establish a Government inquiry, again for the purpose of inquiring into, and reporting on, any matter of public importance.

I know that there are a few jokes about different political parties and about the number of inquiries that some parties might like or the number of royal commissions that other parties might call for, but from my perspective I actually think that it is a really important part of our democratic process. That is why this bill and, in particular, the specificity that is outlined in Part 2 are so important to the operations of our democracy. If people see a situation that happens and feel that it is something bad—it could just be something quite minor but bad, or something really, really serious and tragic and bad—in a robust democracy they want to know what happened and why.

Often that is not possible through our standard parliamentary processes. A select committee, for example, may institute an inquiry, but, again, we do not have within the select committee process the ability, either through expert witnesses or references—or the ability to call witnesses and require people to come under oath. Select committees may not be the appropriate bodies to get that element of truth. Of course, I think that it is still quite unfortunate, but it still happens that, despite our MMP environment, select committee inquiries sometimes become opportunities for political grandstanding. I think that is actually a rather disappointing outcome of an inquiry, because they really should be the opportunity for members of different parties to look at a particular issue of concern, hear the facts, and work together to see if a problem can be resolved or information can be brought to light and shared for the betterment of our citizens.

In that first section in Part 2, clause 6, it talks about those different types of inquiries that can be instigated under the Inquiries Bill. Then, in the next clause, clause 7, it talks about the specific matters to be specified in the instrument establishing the inquiry—so what sort of matters can be discussed and what sort of inquiry would be appropriate. Then the rest of this part is primarily operational. It talks about whether a member of a public inquiry can be removed from that office and under what circumstances, and what happens if there is a vacancy, if somebody resigns, or if for some other reason they cannot continue. I think that this is a really important part of the bill, because it does really explain how the purposes in Part 1 are going to be operationalised.

I was reflecting on the earlier contribution about why this bill has taken so long. We know the serious and good reason that it has come before the House right at this very time, and that is because of the Fonterra issues. I am totally supportive of the light being shone on all aspects of that concern so that we can give ourselves and people overseas buying our products complete confidence about the safety of our exports. But I did wonder what the cause of the delay has been between 2009 and now. I might be a little suspicious. It might just be the political part of my nature unusually coming to the fore, but I do think that the reason that the Government has delayed this bill being progressed for so long is that there have been so many issues in the last 5 years of the National-led Government that deserve an inquiry, where people in this Parliament, people outside of this Parliament, and members of the public—voting, thinking, challenging, and respected citizens in our society—have said: how can this happen in our country? Why can we not have an inquiry, or, more important, why is an inquiry not being considered? Any of these forms of inquiries outlined in Part 2 would have been appropriate.

One that is a very recent occurrence is the deal that the Government did over Skycity, where there are all sorts of unknown elements, where there are stories about the deal that the Prime Minister did with Skycity over dinner, and where a lot of my constituents, I know, say to me: “How is that possible? How is it possible that the laws of New Zealand would have been traded away over a dinner—a casual dinner—and next thing we have legislation being pushed through to change our laws in response to a deal?”. In many countries, and in comparable situations, that action would have triggered an inquiry of some sort. I have to say that I doubt whether it would be a ministerial inquiry.

I very much doubt whether the Minister of Internal Affairs—who I think is responsible, actually, for this very legislation, even though last night I know there was some confusion. Nathan Guy was speaking to the bill—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: He thought he was in charge.

He thought he was in charge, and then the Hon Trevor Mallard drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that when the bill had been published, it was in the name of another Minister, the Hon Chris Tremain. So then the Hon Nathan Guy apologised and said: “Well, it is in his name, so I’ll speak on his behalf.” But then the Chairperson notified the Committee that, actually, the bill was in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy, who had not noticed that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But he still, notwithstanding that, should have said “on behalf of Chris Tremain”.

Well, if he should have said “on behalf of Chris Tremain”, I think we may need an inquiry into who is responsible for this legislation, because I am completely puzzled. I am very confident that it is not the Hon Simon Bridges, who is in the chair, because if he was in charge of this bill, he would know something about it. He would have taken a call. He would have contributed to the debate, I am sure, because he is not short on coming forward on these matters, as I have noticed in other debates in the House.

The instance of the Skycity deal, where our legislation was basically traded away by the Prime Minister over dinner with representatives of Skycity, means there is a convention centre being built in Auckland, but it is in exchange for hundreds more pokie machines being allowed in Skycity against our current regulatory regime. In some situations, the Deputy Auditor-General actually looked at that issue and said that the contract to build the convention centre was flawed, it was not transparent, it was not even-handed, and it established and demonstrated deficiencies on the part of both Ministers and officials.

That is quite serious stuff, and in some countries I know that there would be a call, and it would be responded to, for an independent inquiry. No such inquiry has been triggered by the Government, and I think that is a shame. The whole country knows that that was a shonky deal, but we do not have a process where that sort of debate can be triggered.

So I think, in fact, that even though this is good and well-considered legislation—legislation instigated by the Hon Annette King and introduced to this House by the Hon Rick Barker, which went to a select committee chaired by the Hon David Parker, with Grant Robertson as the junior member from Labour on that committee—I would like to hear from one of the members of the then Government Administration Committee or the Minister in charge of the bill, whoever he may be. I would like to hear whether any of those members consider that this bill deals adequately with what I see as a deficiency in the public accountability of the Government and the transparency of deals—

I want to take a very brief call because I think, as members all across the Chamber have acknowledged, the Inquiries Bill is a non-controversial bill. All parties, I think, have indicated that they are voting for it.

I really just want to address the valid concern that the member Ruth Dyson has just raised and address that square on. I probably will not take up all of the time. What the member said was that—and I think the Independent member, Brendan Horan, also asked questions on this—well, OK, the original law is from 1908. Even the older members of this House were not in Parliament at that time. I think they remember it from listening to earlier calls. They were not in the House. Of course, the history has been relayed. In 2006 the Law Commission had a look, reviewed the law, and recommended a new law. Of course, it is only now that we really get to the final stages. I think an interesting question asked is why it has taken this much time. Well, the simple matters are that, as the member Ruth Dyson has said, of course, the whey protein incident and the issues around that—which I think the member has talked eloquently about—absolutely lead to the desirability to expedite this law and to pass it. As the member said, I think no one in this House would argue against that.

What is also true, though, and what has not been talked about this evening, is that the law was also quite consciously put on hold by the Government from 2010. The reason for that is very simple. I think Ruth Dyson talked about both the Pike River royal commission—obviously, an exceptionally serious situation, which we still deal with and which I as Minister of Labour deal with on a nearly daily basis—and, of course, also the Canterbury earthquakes royal commission. Again, we in this House all understand very well the issues associated with that. As a result of those royal commissions, a conscious decision was made by the Government to put this law on hold to enable us to review, really, the lessons learnt from the chairs and from the members on those commissions, so that we—I was hesitating to say the word “learnings”—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What changes were made as a result of those?

Well, I can go through them. I am actually not going to. I have notes on those. There were a series of changes—procedural changes. I think even the member the Hon Trevor Mallard would acknowledge changes in Supplementary Order Paper 330 on this part, I think it is, that are sensible and that are uncontroversial. Of course, later on there will also be Supplementary Order Paper 332 from the Hon Trevor Mallard, which this side of the Chamber will be supporting. I suppose it is proof that even a broken clock is right twice a day. We will be supporting that—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, now you’ve just added 12 hours to the debate!

Well, it is an oldie but a goody. It is an oldie but a goody. The truth of the matter is that I have explained the time frame for this bill and why we are where we are today. There are some Supplementary Order Papers that I think deal with the findings of the royal commissions and improve this law quite considerably. I just thought it was worthwhile explaining those matters to the Committee.

Notwithstanding what the Minister of Energy and Resources has just said to the Committee about the reason for the delay of this Inquiries Bill being brought back to the House, I do think it is rather ironic, and it should be pointed out, that this Government has had a constant refrain of deriding Opposition parties that have called for inquiries on various important matters over the last 4½ years. And here we have an Inquiries Bill being brought to the House in rather a rush in order to ensure that an important inquiry can take place. The other point to be made, following on from what the Minister said, is that it would be quite good to see a list of those lessons that have been learnt from the royal commissions that have been undertaken and that we are seeing included as part of this bill.

I have got a couple of points to make tonight on Part 2, “Establishment and membership of inquiry”. I just want to make the point that this bill being brought before the House does actually provide for—and it is important to remember also that it was originally a Labour bill—the establishment of both public and Government inquiries. I want to talk a little bit about some of the principles that can lie behind, particularly, public inquiries, and what that can mean in terms of the evolution of inquiries carried out through this Parliament in New Zealand. There are some very important principles—and the Minister actually just alluded to the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 332, which has been put forward by my colleague Trevor Mallard and which I am sure will be discussed as we go through this Committee process—around open justice, and why that is so important as a principle for allowing the public of New Zealand to get a sense of, and build more trust in, the Government in the way that inquiries, in particular, take place.

I want to talk a little bit about that principle, because I went and did a little bit of work on looking at where that principle came from. It goes back even further than, but certainly from, 6 July 1189, which was the date that King Richard I’s accession to the throne occurred, and also around the time of his father, King Henry II, whom he succeeded. It is a common law principle that stretches back to the very beginning part of common law. There was an interesting speech given in the UK a couple of years ago around a vision for open justice in the 21st century, which I thought I might allude to here.

💬 Andrew Little: By Richard I?

Well, no, it was not Richard I, actually; it was a lord—Lord Neuberger. What he talked about was that in the era of television, the internet, and social media the workings of every institution were exposed to far more public opinion than before, and that with greater scrutiny comes the need to adapt and evolve. I think we all know that and we probably all agree with that. The law is no different. His principles around open justice referred to the court process, but these principles can also be applied to the inquiry process. I think they are important to note because the perception is—and I certainly think that it applies to Parliament as well—that the law is frequently out of touch with society. The principle of open justice allows the principle that democracy requires that justice not only be done but is seen to be done.

There are three points that he made that I think are worth noting. He talks about the importance of communication, accessibility, and transparency. Judgments should be as short as possible, there should be better use of technology in those matters, and justice being held in open court should be very carefully considered. I think Trevor Mallard’s amendment actually goes to that last part in particular. When you think about the sorts of inquiries that should have been held in the last 4½ years of this Parliament—of which there are many, and I will not dwell on all of them—there is a particular issue that is of interest and has been of interest for several years. Those are the issues of electronic data safety and privacy, which do relate to Part 2 and the establishment and membership of the inquiry. There is a member’s bill before this House that proposes to create a special commission of inquiry into all of the privacy breaches that have happened in—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Whose name is that in?

Well, that actually happens to be in my name, Mr Mallard. It is a very serious issue. I think every member in this House would say that this is a serious issue. How we propose to deal with it has been perhaps at odds between the different sides of the House. What I wonder is whether this bill before the Committee today, the Inquiries Bill, would actually make such an inquiry easier and whether it would provide the ability for the public to have more of an input into whether such an inquiry took place. That inquiry, in terms of its membership, is proposed to consist of three members, who would be appointed as a special commission by the Governor-General on the nomination of a Minister. But I think that it would be interesting to consider how that inquiry would actually fit under the bill that is before the Committee today, and whether or not that could actually occur more quickly, particularly in regard to the nature of all of the breaches that have happened and that are continuing to happen, which are giving New Zealanders such cause for concern.

There have been thousands, actually. I think we are up to around 150,000 New Zealanders who have had documents containing sensitive information about their lives either downloaded by a member of the public or somehow made visible. Those include things like medical invoices, documents about children in the care of Child, Youth and Family, documents around ACC breaches and Inland Revenue Department breaches, breaches that have exposed holes in the Ministry of Justice’s website, and further breaches from Work and Income. There is just a litany of these breaches that has gone on and on and on.

We know that people make mistakes, but there is a difference between making individual mistakes and the systemic issues of privacy that do require a further look right across the whole of Government. Unfortunately, the current Government’s response to this has been to say that there are no systemic issues.

💬 Andrew Little: Buried their heads in the sand.

It has buried its head in the sand. It has said: “Oh, no. We’ll deal with it on an individual basis and we’ll just throw a little bit of money here or there and pretend that we’ve done something about it.” What an inquiry would achieve, as is proposed to be achieved in the Fonterra inquiry, is that it would actually look right across to see what the issues are, and what are the underlying systemic issues that can be improved upon. So under the current law, which is where this bill has come from, Ministers have two alternatives: the commission of inquiry, which could take too long, or a ministerial inquiry. This third alternative sets up a Government inquiry to carry out an investigation in any way seen as appropriate, and is, in the current circumstances, important, but what is probably more important is that it is something that has actually sat on the books for such a long time. There has been a myriad of reasons as to why there should be other inquiries taking place. Unfortunately, many of those inquiries have not taken place, and the issues are sitting there as issues that the public remain extremely concerned about. We believe that anything that casts sunlight on—

Three to pick from, eh? Oh, I will have to go for seniority. So in that case, I want to call the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Thank you, Mr Chairman—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Andrew Little is higher-ranked than Trevor Mallard is.

Well, that was an indication of someone who does not want to speak in the House for the rest of the year. Do not bother bringing a question to our procedures committee. I wonder whether the member wants to withdraw and apologise now. You know, I might move a bit slowly on occasions, but, like an elephant, I do not forget.

My view is that Part 2 is a relatively simple part of the Inquiries Bill. It has been improved by Chris Tremain and his work—and I do want to welcome the new Minister in the chair, Mr Borrows, to the chair. I do not want to inquire as to what he has done wrong. I mean, everyone else who has been involved in this—Mr Tremain has local government problems and is likely to have an inquiry as to his behaviour in the Hawke’s Bay. We have got Mr Guy, whose lack of ability to run a ministry and the problems with Fonterra are going to be the subject of another inquiry. We have had Simon Bridges, who will, no doubt, eventually be embarrassed into setting up an inquiry into the forestry industry.

But I actually thought that, of all the Ministers, the Minister currently in the chair was in the clear, and maybe that is why he is in the chair. Maybe he is in the chair because the Government has been so embarrassed by all the Ministers that it has had involved that it is getting in a clean Minister, and he is one of the few who can do that.

I think there have been some language changes in this part, but I think probably the most important difference is in the new clause 7 of the bill, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330, which replaces the old clause 7 of the bill. The substantive change is the ability to set up an inquiry with an inquirer—with a person who is going to be either the sole inquirer or the chair of the inquiry, or even have other members as well—before the terms of reference are done. That is the essential change in here. I think it is a logical change. I think that on occasions people will want to get some things under way, but not the hearing of the evidence. It does not allow for evidence to be heard, but it means that there can be some more substantive consultation with those people who are going to be involved in the inquiry around the terms of reference and the details therein. So it is logical.

I also think, and I do not want to by any means criticise my colleague Grant Robertson, but I think that over a period of 4 years the language has improved. It is easier—

💬 Grant Robertson: My language has improved over 4 years.

Well, my language has probably deteriorated. But the language of the bill has improved. It is easier to follow, it is easier to read, and it flows more logically, and for that I am sure we thank officials, rather than Ministers.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is a great pleasure standing to speak on Part 2 of the Inquiries Bill. As others have talked about the bill’s long gestation, I do not really intend to cover that, but I intend to look particularly at the matters contained in Part 2, “Establishment and membership of inquiry”. That includes the type of inquiry, the matters to be specified in the instrument establishing the inquiry, and then various matters to do with the removal and vacancies of membership.

It interests me, because I have to say that I have had very little experience of parliamentary inquiries, that what this part says is that there will be three kinds of inquiry: a royal commission, established under the authorities of the letters patent; public inquiries, which are established by Order in Council—the bill states that “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, establish a public inquiry …”—and Government inquiries, which would be established by a Minister by notice in the Gazette. One of the things that I am quite interested in, and I am sure that many others in this Chamber who have much more experience with inquiries would be able to tell me, is the difference between the last two: a public inquiry established by the Governor-General by Order in Council and a Government inquiry established by notice in the Gazette by a Minister.

But in both cases those latter two—a public inquiry and a Government inquiry—are established “for the purpose of inquiring into, and reporting on, any matter of public importance.” We all know that there are many matters of public importance that the public of New Zealand would be very interested in having inquiries into, because the behaviour of this Government has been little short of shonky, it has been underhand, and it has been failing to take account of the views of New Zealanders. We have had many pieces of rushed legislation and many matters have been ignored.

That leads me to look at whether a public inquiry established by the Governor-General by Order in Council or a Government inquiry established by notice in Gazette by a Minister would be important in relation to a matter that I think is of great public importance. That is the issue of fringe lenders, those people who prey on vulnerable New Zealanders and their families. I want to say why I think that is a matter of public importance. I think it is a matter of public importance because we have an issue that every member of this Committee knows is a problem. We all know there is a problem with fringe lenders. We all know that there are predatory lenders preying on vulnerable New Zealanders and their families. We all know there is a problem. The community knows there is a problem. The issue has been a live one.

There was a review commenced in 2007, which continued with the change of Government, but was then delayed by that new Government and put on the back-burner because another piece of legislation was seen as more important. That other piece of legislation, the Consumer Law Reform Bill, still languishes on the Order Paper. Meanwhile, every day in this country more and more people are being hurt by predatory lenders. This is why I think that either a public inquiry or a Government inquiry is needed here. We are seeing people in spiralling cycles of debt, we are seeing families lose property, we are seeing people under enormous financial stress, and this is all something that the Government could and should have done something about. This is why it is a matter of great public importance.

The Government not only delayed the review that the last Labour Government set up and deprioritised legislative reform but also then went into the last election cynically saying that it was going to get tough on loan sharks. In November 2011, Simon Power said: “We’re getting tough on loan sharks.” There was a constant stream of National Party backbenchers referring to that in their speeches after that election. Not a single thing has been done to get tough on loan sharks as yet—not a single thing. That is an outrage and surely must be a matter that should be inquired into through either a public inquiry or a Government inquiry.

Let me tell you that budget services throughout New Zealand are saying that the overwhelming majority of people they see—in the 90 percents—are burdened by high-interest debt. They are saying that the level of debt of those people is more significant now. They are saying that the complexity of those cases is much more difficult for them to deal with, yet nothing is being done. There must be an inquiry into why the Government is allowing some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders to get into this spiral of financial hardship and debt. It is just unbelievable that a party could allow that to happen.

I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of the Inquiries Bill. I know that my colleague is looking at me over there—

💬 Tim Macindoe: Part 2.

Oh, sorry, we are on Part 2. I am very happy to talk about Part 2, which is about the establishment and membership of an inquiry.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Part 3’s fine by us.

That is right. It is a very, very important part, and it talks about the kinds of inquiries that will be established and the matters to be specified in the instrument establishing an inquiry. I want to talk in particular about the types of inquiries that we could have under Part 2. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour, Simon Bridges, is no longer in the chair, because I want to talk about—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: No, don’t say that about Chester.

No, look, I am really, really happy that Chester is in the chair. He is a very competent—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—Minister. Yes, all right. Well, I am getting to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The full name of the member.

Oh, the full name.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Chester Borrows or the honourable Minister.

Chester Borrows. OK, the Hon Chester Borrows. I am very happy that he is in the chair, but it would have been better if the Hon Simon Bridges had been there, because what I wanted to talk about was the potential for an inquiry that could be established under Part 2 into safety in the forestry industry. Labour, the industry—the forestry owners, the forestry contractors, and, in fact, everybody in the industry—and everyone who is associated with the industry, such as the families and others, have been calling for an inquiry into the industry, which could be established under Part 2. It seems to me that under Part 2 would fit very, very nicely a forestry inquiry for the family members of workers who have been killed in the forestry industry not only in the last few years but in this year in particular. I think we are now up to six workers killed in the forestry industry. There could be an inquiry established that would be very fitting under Part 2.

I am very keen to hear from the Minister in the chair about why that particular inquiry cannot be established under Part 2 of this bill, and why we have everybody in the entire industry—the workers, the forest owners, and the forestry contractors—calling now for an inquiry into an industry that has obviously got some problems. Sure, the Minister of Labour has continued to say that he has set up a code of practice and that that has got all the answers. He says that he has all the answers, but obviously in this industry there is a systemic problem that needs to have an inquiry.

I think that it is very good to have a discussion about the potential of inquiries. I know that my colleagues have talked about a range of other inquiries. Carol Beaumont has talked about inquiries into loan sharks, and I know that my colleague sitting here next to me, Iain Lees-Galloway, would like to talk about other inquiries. An inquiry into the forestry industry would seem to me to be a priority. In fact, right now the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has a petition in front of it calling for an inquiry. Who has that call come from? It has come from the family members of those who have been killed in the forestry industry over the last few years. We are up to, as I said before, six people killed in the forestry industry this year. That is one a month, and something like 28 over the last 5 years, so it really is a serious issue.

I think what people are struggling with understanding is why there is so much resistance from the Minister of Labour to an inquiry into the forestry industry and forestry safety when you have everybody saying that it needs to happen. The petition I referred to earlier is on behalf of Caroline Callow, who is the mother of a worker who was killed in the forestry industry. Families have lost loved ones, and they have written to the select committee and told their stories about what it has been like for them to lose a son, a husband, or a partner in terrible accidents in the forestry industry. It seems to me that since Part 3 requires that inquiries “must act independently, impartially, and fairly”, it would be absolutely fitting for this Parliament to be thinking about an inquiry into forestry.

Let us talk about the forestry industry and what an inquiry might uncover. Forestry in New Zealand is twice as dangerous as in Australia and up to seven times as dangerous as in the UK. What is happening here? The industry is fragmented. There are nine major forest owners, who use up to 300 contractors. All of this information could be uncovered under Part 2 of this Inquiries Bill. It is a really important sector, Mr Chair, and I know that you want me to go back to Part 2—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is not an inquiry about forestry.

Well, it is, actually. Part 2 does give the opportunity to talk about exactly what the establishment and membership of an inquiry could be, so let us talk about that. Let us talk about the establishment of an inquiry into forestry. Who would that involve? Well, it would obviously involve the Forestry Industry Contractors Association and the Forest Owners Association. They are saying already that they think there should be an inquiry. It would involve the Council of Trade Unions. The families have also been calling for an inquiry. The only outstanding parties at the moment are the Government and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s often the case.

—it is often the case; that is true—or the Department of Labour, as it used to be called. They were in denial about this, but I think the people who would be involved in that inquiry are pretty clear. All we are waiting for, really, is for Simon Bridges, the Minister of Labour, to accept that it is time for an inquiry into this industry.

Part 2 would fit extremely well in terms of the establishment and membership of an inquiry. It also talks about the matters to be specified in the establishment of the inquiry. In fact, there is plenty of evidence around what the matters may be. For example, clause 7(2) states: “The matters are—(a) the matter of public importance that is the subject of the inquiry;”. What other matter of public importance could there be, other than that six people have lost their lives this year? Have we not learnt anything? Well, according to this bill, apparently we have learnt something from the Pike River Mine commission of inquiry, and that was about 29 workers losing their lives.

The bill then goes on to talk about not only matters of public importance but who is going to be appointed to be members of the inquiry, and the events or matters that are relevant to the inquiry, and so on. The good thing about this piece of legislation is that it actually makes it easier for the Minister of Labour to set this up. It takes away the excuse that he has had so far, which is that there does not need to be an inquiry because he has got all the answers and that he has set up an approved code of practice, which is just a rewrite of something that Max Bradford did in 1999.

If the Government was serious about this Inquiries Bill, which of course we support because we want to see more inquiries, it would say that safety in the forestry industry is an appropriate inquiry to be held under Part 2 of the Inquiries Bill. I hope that we will see, with the passing of this bill, that the Minister of Labour will be a little bit more open to the idea. I do not understand what his reservations have been. I do not understand what the problem is about opening something up and saying “What’s the problem, because we clearly have a problem with people dying in the forestry industry?”. What is the problem with actually opening it up and asking people for the answers, or asking people to give evidence and information? But he seems to have a problem with that because he thinks he has all the answers.

However, as I said, I think Part 2 is a very, very good platform for the establishment and membership of an inquiry into safety in the forestry industry, which people are calling for, which everyone is calling for—the families, the forestry industry, the owners, the contractors, the public, and so on. It is time—

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Duties, powers, immunities, and privileges