O'Rourke Denis: Inquiries Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Inquiries Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12641. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will be supporting this Inquiries Bill. It establishes three types of inquiry—first of all royal commissions which actually become included in the term “public inquiry” which are also provided for and thirdly Government inquiries. Public inquiries are established by an Order in Council whereas the Government inquiries of course are established by notice in theGazette .Concerning the establishment of those inquiries under clause 7 the Government’s amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 330 provide for a more flexible establishment provision to allow for planning time for the establishment of an inquiry. That is a very sensible provision. Ministers can set any matters in the terms of reference which may or may not include a reporting date. We think that is very sensible as well. We note as the Government has pointed out the terms of reference for the recent Ministerial Inquiry into the Novopay Project for example which simply set out an indicative time frame rather than a specific reporting date.Concerning reporting clause 12(2) says: “The final report of an inquiry must set out”—as you would expect—“(a) the findings of the inquiry; and (b) any recommendations of the inquiry.” But I wonder why it does not—and I think it should—also provide for in a new paragraph (c) which is what I would like to see there the addition of the reasons for the findings and the recommendations. Perhaps that is implicit but I think it should be specific and it might be something I would raise later at the Committee stage.Concerning clause 13 I note that clause 13(1) provides for an inquiry having the power to request the appointment of counsel to assist it in its proceedings but in doing so it must have regard to the purposes of the bill and is required to consider effectiveness efficiency and fairness and also issues such as the subject matter of the inquiry and the most appropriate procedures. This will allow for legal assistance to inquiries but it must be justified and not automatic. I think that is a very good balance to include. I also note from the Government’s advice that it intends that the Crown LawOffice will develop administrative guidelines on the role and the appointment of counsel. I think that would be a very wise thing to do having regard to the fact that I think that some inquiries simply appoint counsel to assist them when it is not really required. So I think that is quite a good provision.Concerning clause 14 “Regulation of inquiry procedure” the inquiry can as you would expect conduct its proceedings as it considers appropriate but I am glad to see that it is required to comply with the principles of natural justice especially if an inquiry proposes to make a finding that is adverse to any person. If it does do that it must make that person aware of that and able to have an opportunity to respond to the matters that the inquiry intends to raise about that person. It is good to see these natural justice protections for individuals being incorporated in the bill.Clause 15 “Power to impose restrictions on access to inquiry” is an important provision. An inquiry may forbid publication of any evidence or submissions any report or account of the evidence the name or other particulars concerning witnesses and so on. It may restrict public access to any part or aspect of the inquiry. All of that is fine. But before making an order it must consider the risk of prejudice to public confidence because if it is too secretive that will be affected. On the other hand it must consider the need for the inquiry to ascertain the facts properly and the extent to which public proceedings may prejudice the security defence or economic interests of New Zealand. I think that the bill in this respect sets a proper balance between public and private interests as far as information is concerned.Turning to clause 19 and legal assistance for participants it states: “An inquiry may at any time make a recommendation to”—effectively I think the legal aid agency—“that funding be granted for the purpose of providing legal assistance to 1 or more specified persons who wish or who are required to appear before the inquiry; or who have an interest in the inquiry.” There is a need for a specific authority for legal aid in this way and it is a provision that New Zealand First is particularly pleased to see incorporated in the bill.Finally concerning clause 30 dealing with offences every person commits an offence who does any one of a number of things and clause 30(1)(b) includes refusing to be sworn or to affirm and give evidence. But that is balanced by a provision in clause 30(2)(c) which states that a person does not commit an offence if “compliance would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law … including the right to a fair trial.” That is an appropriate balance between those two things. I worry a little bit about the term “would be likely to prejudice” because that is a fairly uncertain term. Ultimately of course that could be decided if necessary by the High Court.On balance New Zealand First will support the bill. We consider it a good revision of the law on Government and public inquiries and it is one that has been a long time coming. We look forward to further debate on and consideration of the bill at its further stages.