Parker David: Inquiries Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Inquiries Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12643. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to take a call in this second reading on the Inquiries Bill. I sat on the Government Administration Committee and I think at an earlier time I may have been part of the Government that adopted the recommendation of the Law Commission to update the legislation relating to inquiries so as to make improvements to inquiries that are conducted in New Zealand. As I recall there was at one stage a discussion as to whether because of the wording of this bill we actually needed to have any commissions of inquiry called “royal” commissions of inquiry but it was decided that that term would continue into the future because people had an understanding as to how serious those inquiries are and it was appropriate for continuity to enable that term to go forward.The Labour Party supports this legislation. I want to deal with what I thought was a very erudite contribution from Holly Walker. Thank you for that. I had cause to read the bill after that contribution was made in particular in relation to the immunities and privileges of participants in the inquiries that are set up under the Inquiries Bill if it comes into force. Before I do so I should note that an inquiry is as it sounds. It is not determining civil or criminal liability. Indeed clause 11 of the bill says: “an inquiry has no power to determine a civil criminal or disciplinary liability of any person.” It is not attaching civil or criminal liability to any person but as subsection 2 of clause 11 says: “[this] does not prevent an inquiry in exercising its powers and performing its duties under this Act from making—(a) findings of fault; or (b) recommendations that further steps be taken to determine liability.” So for example the inquiry could say that it recommends that there be some civil or criminal action against someone who it thought was at fault but it could not make a finding of criminal fault itself. Of course it is intended that these inquiries adhere to the principles of natural justice and that is made clear by clause 17 of the bill which says: “an inquiry must not in its report make any finding that is adverse to any person (whether a natural person or a body corporate) unless the inquiry has taken all reasonable steps to give that person reasonable notice ofthe intention to make the finding” to disclose the contents of the report and to give them a “reasonable opportunity to respond to the proposed finding”.Coming then to the issue as to other immunities and privileges of participants clause 28 of the bill—“Other immunities and privileges of participants” is the title of that clause—says: “Witnesses and other persons participating in an inquiry (other than counsel) have the same immunities and privileges as if they were appearing in civil proceedings and the provisions of Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act 2006 apply to the inquiry” as if it were a civil proceeding and as if every reference in the Evidence Act to judges were a reference to the inquiry. To make sense of that one then has to go to the Evidence Act 2006 which sets out the various claims to privilege that can be made in Subpart 8 of Part 2. I had that open but—if you just give me a second—it has just closed.I looked up the relevant part of the Evidence Act which is Subpart 8 of Part 2 where it lists various privileges. The privileges listed include communications with legal advisers; professional legal services—this is not a complete list—privilege for settlement negotiations or mediation; privilege for communications with ministers of religion; and privilege in criminal proceedings for information obtained by medical practitioners and clinical psychologists which I think might be limited to criminal proceedings rather than civil proceedings so I am not clear on my quick reading of this whether that extends through this provision to the inquiries that would be conducted under the Inquiries Bill. There is the privilege against self-incrimination; the discretion as to incrimination under foreign law—and I am not even sure that I properly understand that; I will have to read that in more detail—claiming privilege against self-incrimination in court proceedings; and then an informer has a privilege in respect of information that would disclose or is likely to disclose the informer’s identity. Then there are privileges there in respect of disclosure requirements in civil proceedings.Having listed the various privileges that are set out or some of them in Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act which through clause 28 of this bill also apply to inquiries the question that I am left with—and I thank Holly Walker for her contribution because I am not sure whether I have quite got my head around this properly yet—is about the reference to appearing in civil proceedings and the limitation of these immunities and privileges of participants. I will read it out again: “Witnesses and other persons participating in an inquiry (other than counsel) have the same immunities and privileges as if they were appearing in civil proceedings and the provisions of subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act 2006 apply …”. I am not sure on my reading of this now—and it is some years since the bill was before the select committee so forgive me for my loss of memory; I might have known at the time but I certainly do not know now—whether that reference to civil proceedings limits the types of privileges that are listed in Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act to a subset of the privileges that I have just referred to.If it does not and if all of the privileges that are set out in Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act 2006 flow through to the Inquiries Bill then I would have thought that this law is good law because it would be saying that the various privileges that are covered in evidence before the courts are all covered for an inquiry under the Evidence Act 2006 and I would feel comfortable that we have got it right. But I am not 100 percent sure of that because I am not sure whether because of this reference to civil proceedings we are limiting the types of privileges in inquiries to a narrower set of the privileges that I have already referred to. So that is a question that I would like the Government to address in the Committee stage. We should be able to find out whether the privileges that are referred to in clause 28 are sufficiently broad. If they are then the Labour Party will continue with its support of this bill. I thank the member Holly Walker for that contribution because I thought that it was an appropriate one.Having said that I say that this bill does have the background of a Law Commission report behind it and I would expect that it had thoroughly considered those issues at the time. We can all make mistakes however and some of the events that we have had inquiries about recently sometimes make us more aware of issues than was the case prior to those events occurring. So I am pleased to speak in support of this second reading.