Little Andrew:Inquiries Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew:Inquiries Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12740. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is a pleasure again just to make some comments on Part 3 of the Inquiries Bill. I just want to draw attention to some clauses in this partbecause I think the provisions in this part are really the meat of this legislation and they could stand us in very good stead in what could be some very important inquiries some of which have already been alluded to this evening.I note in clause 10 the principles that any inquiry must abide by in conducting itself and I was interested to note the words that the members must act “independently impartially and fairly.” The last time we heard those words was actually in a speech by Richard Nixon after he had just sacked JohnEhrlichman and John Dean his White House counsel to set up an inquiry into the conduct of certain matters to do with Watergate. But there we go—that was an inquiry that had all sorts of ramifications not the least of which were for Richard Nixon himself.I want to draw attention to clause 11 which limits the scope of an inquiry. It is very important that inquiries of the nature contemplated by this bill as indeed with commissions of inquiry are about getting to the facts of the matter so that there can be an improved understanding about the cause of an event or events and so that public confidence can be restored if indeed public confidence has been shaken as a result of an event or an incident. The bill makes it very clear that an inquiry convened under the aegis of this legislation is not to determine civil criminal or disciplinary liability so that people who are participating in it and certainly people giving evidence in it cannot be held to be criminally or civilly liable or made to face any particular disciplinary action. It does not mean of course that recommendations cannot be made that further action be taken by other bodies. But it is very important to note that an inquiry itself cannot have a civil criminal or other disciplinary effect.The next clause I want to draw attention to is clause 14 and that is the natural justice clause. The original bill as drafted had a clause 17. That has gone and the natural justice provisions appear in subclause (2) of clause 14 and also in subclause (2A). That is very important too and that is simply to ensure that if any adverse finding is likely to come out of an inquiry those against whom those adverse findings may be made will have an opportunity to respond or to comment before those are published.Clause 15 is very important. This is about whether or not an inquiry during its conduct can close itself to the public or suppress evidence. I think that Trevor Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 332 is apposite. It starts with a presumption that inquiry hearings will be open but it provides a protection if it is felt that the interests of individuals may be compromised if it goes public. I note in that regard that when an inquiry is considering whether or not to suppress information or keep its hearing private one of the factors it must consider is whether or not it would interfere with the administration of justice including any person’s right to a fair trial.I draw attention to all those matters because the Government has an opportunity—in fact I actually think it now has a duty—to open a full inquiry after tonight’s broadcast on TV3 which concluded only 15 minutes ago about the latest revelations on Teina Pora and on Malcolm Rewa. The Government has the opportunity to open a full-blown inquiry. It can do it and under the principles of this bill when it is enacted it will be able to do it without compromising any criminal procedure or indeed civil or other disciplinary procedure. But the case for inquiring into that matter is now compelling and it must happen. I am sure there will be plenty of comment on that in the days to follow because the revelation tonight is an absolute bombshell—that the police knew the identity of Malcolm Rewa as a rapist after the first rape in what was a series over 7 years. The police knew it. It is time for an inquiry and this Government is derelict in its duty if it does not have one.I want to make one final point and that is about legal assistance. I note that the legal assistance provisions allow what is described as the relevant department to grant legalassistance. That is not the Ministry of Justice. It is either the Department of Internal Affairs or any other department that is administering the inquiry and that gives—The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 15 be agreed to:insert in subclause (2) the following paragraph after “criteria”:(aa)the benefits of observing the principle of open justice; andAmendment agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.