O'Rourke Denis:Inquiries Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis:Inquiries Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12737. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will support the Inquiries Bill which updates the law concerning inquiries because we feel the new amendments are certainly needed. But one concern we have relates to reporting. Clause 12(2) states “The final report of an inquiry must set out—(a) the findings of the inquiry; and (b) any recommendations of the inquiry.” but it does not provide for the reasons for the findings and the recommendations. Probably that is implicit so I have not sought to make any amendment to that but it would have been preferable if you are going to say those other two things that the reasons for the findings and recommendations must be stated as well. However I am satisfied really that it would be implicit and would be included. I could not imagine a report that did not have reasons for findings and recommendations as well as the findings and recommendations themselves. So that is OK.I note that clause 13(1) provides specifically for an inquiry having the power to request the appointment of counsel to assist it but in doing so it must consider effectiveness efficiency and fairness amongst other things. This will allow for legal assistance to inquiries but it must be justified by these provisions and would not be automatic. I have some concern that inquiries may feel unduly constrained by this but I do not think they should be because the amendment to clause 13(2) as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 says: “The Solicitor-General must if requested to do so appoint counsel to assist an inquiry but in doing so must—(a) have regard to the matters specified in subsection (1)” including those that I have referred to. I think that this is as it should be a good balance between the right of the inquiry to have legal assistance but really only if it is justified in those terms.Under clause 14 witnesses can be required to give evidence in both public and Government inquiries and so they should. Under the amendment to clause 14 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 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 person. If it does do that it must make that person aware and give the person an opportunity to respond to the matters that the inquiry intends to raise about that person. That is also as it should be. The power to require the giving of evidence as is necessary I think is properly balanced by natural justice requirements.Clause 15 “Power to impose restrictions on access to inquiry” is a very important provision that we ought to pay particular attention to. Before making an order the inquiry must consider the risk of prejudice to public confidence. On the other hand under subclause (2) it must consider “(b) the need for the inquiry to ascertain the facts properly; and (c) the extent to which public proceedings may prejudice security defence or the economic interests of New Zealand;”. I think that is a good balance too. But I do think that it is proper for New Zealand First to support Trevor Mallard’s typescript amendment to add a new subclause subclause (2)(aa) of clause 15 that says “the benefits of observing the principle of open justice;”. I think that is particularly apt when you consider that these days there is a great public expectation in favour of transparency. I think that amendment would ensure that those public expectations are met.I turn to clause 19 and legal assistance for participants. It can be recommended of 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.” New Zealand First is particularly pleased to see this but our concern is with subclause (3) which says: “If a recommendation is made under subsection (1) the chief executive may” grant legal aid. We think this should be “must”. We think it is the inquiry that should have the discretion not the legal aid agency.It is unclear to me whether the legal aid income and capital thresholds for legal aid would apply if the legal aid agency has a discretion in this way because of the use of the word “may” instead of the word “must”. I think that is one of the things that will challenge the thinking of the agency. Perhaps it is dealt with in the legal aid agency legislation but I doubt it. If that is the case legal aid could be declined perhaps for that reason. This is a concern to us and something that perhaps the Government might want to have a look at. It might be so even if a person is summoned to appear before the inquiry. Such people should have a right to legal aid despite capital and income thresholds because those thresholds are severe and I do not think it would be fair for persons to have to bear the cost of their own legal representation if they are just within what we would normally regard as ordinary income and capital wealth rather than those who would have to comply with the legal aid thresholds.So with those I think quite significant reservations New Zealand First will support the bill which overall is a good one but we regret that we think there are still one or two little glitches in it which we would like to see improved.