Fenton Darien:Inquiries Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFenton Darien:Inquiries Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am happy to take a call on Part 3 of the Inquiries Bill. I know that my colleague is looking at me over there—Tim Macindoe: Part 2.DARIEN FENTON: Oh sorry we are on Part 2. I am very happy to talk about Part 2 which is about the establishment and membership of an inquiry.Tim Macindoe: Part 3’s fine by us.DARIEN FENTON: That is right. It is a very very important part and it talks about the kinds of inquiries that will be established and the matters to be specified in the instrument establishing an inquiry. I want to talk in particular about the types of inquiries that we could have under Part 2. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour Simon Bridges is no longer in the chair because I want to talk about—Hon Ruth Dyson: No don’t say that about Chester.DARIEN FENTON: No look I am really really happy that Chester is in the chair. He is a very competent—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!DARIEN FENTON: —Minister. Yes all right. Well I am getting to that.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The full name of the member.DARIEN FENTON: Oh the full name.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Chester Borrows or the honourable Minister.DARIEN FENTON: Chester Borrows. OK the Hon Chester Borrows. I am very happy that he is in the chair but it would have been better if the Hon Simon Bridges had been there because what I wanted to talk about was the potential for an inquiry that could be established under Part 2 into safety in the forestry industry. Labour the industry—the forestry owners the forestry contractors and in fact everybody in the industry—and everyone who is associated with the industry such as the families and others have been calling for an inquiry into the industry which could be established under Part 2. It seems to me that under Part 2 would fit very very nicely a forestry inquiry for the family members of workers who have been killed in the forestry industry not only in the last few years but in this year in particular. I think we are now up to six workers killed in the forestry industry. There could be an inquiry established that would be very fitting under Part 2.I am very keen to hear from the Minister in the chair about why that particular inquiry cannot be established under Part 2 of this bill and why we have everybody in the entire industry—the workers the forest owners and the forestry contractors—calling now for an inquiry into an industry that has obviously got some problems. Sure the Minister of Labour has continued to say that he has set up a code of practice and thatthat has got all the answers. He says that he has all the answers but obviously in this industry there is a systemic problem that needs to have an inquiry.I think that it is very good to have a discussion about the potential of inquiries. I know that my colleagues have talked about a range of other inquiries. Carol Beaumont has talked about inquiries into loan sharks and I know that my colleague sitting here next to me Iain Lees-Galloway would like to talk about other inquiries. An inquiry into the forestry industry would seem to me to be a priority. In fact right now the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has a petition in front of it calling for an inquiry. Who has that call come from? It has come from the family members of those who have been killed in the forestry industry over the last few years. We are up to as I said before six people killed in the forestry industry this year. That is one a month and something like 28 over the last 5 years so it really is a serious issue.I think what people are struggling with understanding is why there is so much resistance from the Minister of Labour to an inquiry into the forestry industry and forestry safety when you have everybody saying that it needs to happen. The petition I referred to earlier is on behalf of Caroline Callow who is the mother of a worker who was killed in the forestry industry. Families have lost loved ones and they have written to the select committee and told their stories about what it has been like for them to lose a son a husband or a partner in terrible accidents in the forestry industry. It seems to me that since Part 3 requires that inquiries “must act independently impartially and fairly” it would be absolutely fitting for this Parliament to be thinking about an inquiry into forestry.Let us talk about the forestry industry and what an inquiry might uncover. Forestry in New Zealand is twice as dangerous as in Australia and up to seven times as dangerous as in the UK. What is happening here? The industry is fragmented. There are nine major forest owners who use up to 300 contractors. All of this information could be uncovered under Part 2 of this Inquiries Bill. It is a really important sector Mr Chair and I know that you want me to go back to Part 2—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is not an inquiry about forestry.DARIEN FENTON: Well it is actually. Part 2 does give the opportunity to talk about exactly what the establishment and membership of an inquiry could be so let us talk about that. Let us talk about the establishment of an inquiry into forestry. Who would that involve? Well it would obviously involve the Forestry Industry Contractors Association and the Forest Owners Association. They are saying already that they think there should be an inquiry. It would involve the Council of Trade Unions. The families have also been calling for an inquiry. The only outstanding parties at the moment are the Government and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s often the case.DARIEN FENTON: —it is often the case; that is true—or the Department of Labour as it used to be called. They were in denial about this but I think the people who would be involved in that inquiry are pretty clear. All we are waiting for really is for Simon Bridges the Minister of Labour to accept that it is time for an inquiry into this industry.Part 2 would fit extremely well in terms of the establishment and membership of an inquiry. It also talks about the matters to be specified in the establishment of the inquiry. In fact there is plenty of evidence around what the matters may be. For example clause 7(2) states: “The matters are—(a) the matter of public importance that is the subject of the inquiry;”. What other matter of public importance could there be other than that six people have lost their lives this year? Have we not learnt anything? Well according to this bill apparently we have learnt something from the Pike River Mine commission of inquiry and that was about 29 workers losing their lives.The bill then goes on to talk about not only matters of public importance but who is going to be appointed to be members of the inquiry and the events or matters that are relevant to the inquiry and so on. The good thing about this piece of legislation is that it actually makes it easier for the Minister of Labour to set this up. It takes away the excuse that he has had so far which is that there does not need to be an inquiry because he has got all the answers and that he has set up an approved code of practice which is just a rewrite of something that Max Bradford did in 1999.If the Government was serious about this Inquiries Bill which of course we support because we want to see more inquiries it would say that safety in the forestry industry is an appropriate inquiry to be held under Part 2 of the Inquiries Bill. I hope that we will see with the passing of this bill that the Minister of Labour will be a little bit more open to the idea. I do not understand what his reservations have been. I do not understand what the problem is about opening something up and saying “What’s the problem because we clearly have a problem with people dying in the forestry industry?”. What is the problem with actually opening it up and asking people for the answers or asking people to give evidence and information? But he seems to have a problem with that because he thinks he has all the answers.However as I said I think Part 2 is a very very good platform for the establishment and membership of an inquiry into safety in the forestry industry which people are calling for which everyone is calling for—the families the forestry industry the owners the contractors the public and so on. It is time—The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 330 in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.