Dyson Ruth:Inquiries Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth:Inquiries Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12723. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Inquiries Bill. I want to begin just by commending my colleague the Hon Annette King for instigating this bill in 2008—some 5 and a bit years ago. The driving force for that instigation was the frustration that many people felt as has been explained by other contributors in this part of the debate and that many of us felt about the lack of ability of inquiries to really get to the basis of the truth. That is a really important point for the Committee of the whole House to consider because the reason that inquiries are called for whether it is at the instigation of the Governor-General or at the instigation of a Minister is that from the public’s point of view there is some information that we do not have and the public of New Zealand quite rightly expect that information to be made available to them.These are about serious matters. We have had two very serious inquiries over recent times in New Zealand. The first one was in relation to the Pike River tragedy and the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Bridges is very familiar with the recommendations that flowed from that. I certainly hope that the focus on health and safety particularly in the mining area continues. What a massive tragedy we had to suffer before that focus was given but it is there now. But once again we know that the families on the West Coast are frustrated about the lack of complete information that they have and that is primarily because of the inability of the inquiry because of its terms of reference to get that information for them.In my own town of Christchurch we have had similar situations with inquiries. In the royal commission of inquiry into the collapse of Canterbury buildings we have seen in the example of the collapse of the CTV Building an extraordinary series of faults. People have acted irresponsibly people have acted beyond the scope of their registration and their ability and people have cut corners and lied about things being safe or otherwise and as a result of that series of errors we lost 115 lives in one building. There cannot be a greater call for the right of the public to know what happened in the first instance and the right of people to be confident that Parliament will address the causes of tragedies such as the two I have just outlined so that the public ofNew Zealand—our citizens—can be sure that we know the facts and we address them in order to make sure that such situations can never occur again.That is not the current situation with inquiries. For a variety of reasons there are often frustrations for either the person leading the inquiry—or in my view more important—members of the public who are waiting for the information that is so critical for their ability to understand the situation and perhaps if it is appropriate to move on in their lives. The ability of the terms of reference to be set in a way that satisfies that public interest is not in the current law. In 2008 Annette King recognised that. She got a very good report from the Law Commission and this bill was a result of that. It was reported back to Parliament by what I understand was an excellent Government Administration Committee. It was chaired at the time by David Parker. Our deputy leader Grant Robertson sat on that committee. He has contributed—Hon Trevor Mallard: He was a junior member at the time.Hon RUTH DYSON: He was a junior member of the committee at the time. That is how long ago it was—2009. And here we are some time later 4½ years later—actually 4 years and 9 months later—looking at this with some urgency.I want to go on later in this debate to the reason for the urgency but I just want to briefly allude to it before I move back to the other questions about the scope which are dealt with in the primary purpose of this legislation. The Government has brought this Inquiries Bill back to the House suddenly with such huge pressure for a very serious reason and that is the Fonterra issues of contamination in our exports. I do not think that there is a single member of this House who would not confirm that in relation to potential contamination of any of our export products the safety of consumers particularly when those consumers are children is paramount. So I want to say to the Government that despite its total inability to manage its legislative programme which has left us looking at this bill in August 2013 when it was reported back to the House in 2009 and also the inability of its management this evening demonstrated by an extraordinary proposal by the senior whip on a bill that we all agree with and which is now going to take a little longer than perhaps may have been envisaged because of a lack of willingness to listen to what other people say work out what their concerns were and get the bill progressed I do not want anyone to be in any doubt of my view and the view I think of every member of this House. In relation to the Fonterra issue and the need for a robust inquiry there would not be a single member who does not say that the safety of children and other consumers in relation to our exports is paramount. That is why I certainly support this bill progressing.I heard the member Holly Walker the Green Party member express the Green Party’s original concerns about the potential for overuse of some of the powers given in the bill. I appreciate those concerns and I think they are very valid. I guess our awareness of those sorts of concerns is heightened given that just a little while ago—almost an hour ago—the Government rammed through the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) legislation which in any ordinary time and with a Government that was considerate of the rest of Parliament and indeed of its citizens would have received much more collaboration discussion and thought and received if not the unanimous support the overwhelming support of Parliament because of the nature of the process that would have been put together to address any changes. That is often the sort of work that an inquiry would do. An inquiry can step aside from the politics of the situation examine the circumstances that people have identified as being a problem or an issue that needs examination and make independent recommendations to Parliament. I think it is the responsibility of this Parliament to behave more like that on a lot of issues but particularly in regard to issues of national security. It is exactly the opposite of how the Government behaved this afternoon andthis evening in relation to the passing of the GCSB legislation. So I think the concerns that Holly Walker raised were absolutely correct to be raised and I am really pleased that she has found that the amendments as outlined and further consideration have given her party the ability to support this bill.How the membership of an inquiry panel is set up what powers it has what duties it has and what privileges it has—these are all set out in the changes outlined in Part 1. The ability to call witnesses to require witnesses to attend an inquiry and for the witnesses to testify on oath is a big change. Certainly had that been the situation with the David Henry inquiry into the leaking of theKitteridge report the outcome for Peter Dunne and his ministerial post—and perhaps the outcome in terms of other people who have fallen victim; who have been used as scapegoats actually by the Government in my view—in regard to the leaking of theKitteridge report may have been entirely different. I do think that when you are talking about people who have very little ability to speak in this House in defence of their position and to defend their own personal integrity or where you have people who might lose their Public Service positions and who have no ability for a comeback from that in the future—Wellington is a village; we all know what happens in those situations—it is the responsibility of anyone in a position of power and the National Government certainly is in this regard to maintain a position of absolute integrity and independence from the situation and from the judgment and from the ramifications. That has not been the position in regard to either David Henry or the other people who have been involved in the subsequent fallout.I was stunned actually to hear tonight the stories of the National Party members of the Privileges Committee—that is the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Anne Tolley—and the way they turned on David Henry in that Privileges Committee hearing in a way that I am not sure I recall having occurred before in my time in Parliament. I heard of the disrespect the abuse of a powerful position and the total undermining of the fact that that man was appointed to do a specific role and did his job not just to the best of his ability—I do not know him at all but he was appointed by the Prime Minister because of his ability—but also within the mandate of the inquiry that he had. So I think that when we are looking at the way that people run inquiries we have to recognise that until this bill becomes law they are restricted by the mandate by the terms of reference by the scope and by the law of the inquiry that they have been tasked with. I do not think that Mr Henry has been treated by Government members on the Privileges Committee in a way that is appropriate and I do not think that it has been a fair reflection of the role that he was asked to undertake and that he took within the scope of that inquiry.So because we do not have as this bill makes obvious—in Part 1 we change all the rules—the scopes for inquiry and because we currently do not have that ability or the power to call witnesses and to require witnesses to appear on oath we still do not know who leaked theKitteridge report. As a result of the fallout not only has a Minister lost his position but also we have had the amazing exposure of information about the fact that the Prime Minister’s political chief of staff can get access to the phone records and swipe access cards of members of Parliaments and members of the press gallery which tell people—other people who are inquiring into something that might be irrelevant—which parts of the building we have accessed. Many of us might think in response to the naive comments that the Prime Minister has made that if you do not go anywhere that is a bother then you should not have a concern about it. Well I reject that. I reject it because my right to privacy and my right to security as a New Zealand citizen should be reinforced by the Government not undermined by it.We have not had just the example where WayneEagleson from the Prime Minister’s office is able to put pressure on various parts of our parliamentary system to get accessto information about our movements; it is information that we could not get through a normal process of inquiry. I hope those sorts of—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Just come back to—Hon RUTH DYSON: —in Part 1—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No. You will have to do better than that.Hon RUTH DYSON: Clause 3 the purpose of the bill is to extend the ability of inquiries to get this sort of information openly and with accountability and transparency compared with what we have seen done with skulduggery and political pressure in the last little while in New Zealand.I want to finish by just going back to the Fonterra inquiry. Our exports are of fundamental importance in terms of our reputation internationally in terms of our economy and in terms of how we relate to people and nations around the world. That reputation has had a number of dints in recent times and one of the driving forces for this bill coming back to the House now is to ensure that the Fonterra inquiry is able through its enhanced scope and powers to give not just the public and the citizens of New Zealand but those who will shop for and hopefully buy our exports from the shelves in many countries the confidence that we were as concerned about contamination in New Zealand as they were and that we got the full truth about the situation aired that full truth and made sure that what we learnt from that contamination was addressed so that it could not happen in the future. The security of our exports and the safety and security of consumers are of critical importance.