O'Rourke Denis: Inquiries Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Inquiries Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 22 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12772. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):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. Theconcern 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.