Guy Nathan: Inquiries Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGuy Nathan: Inquiries Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12631. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries)on behalf of theMinister of Internal Affairs: I moveThat the Inquiries Bill be now read a second time . This bill had its first reading and was reported back from the Government Administration Committee in 2009. The bill was put on hold in 2010 while the Royal Commission—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it not the normal practice for a member moving a bill on behalf of another member to make it clear that it is on behalf of the Minister in charge of the bill? This is not a bill in this Minister’s name.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have to admit that I was in the process of changing over and I was not paying my normal diligent attention. Does the member want to just correct that? I invite the member to clarify the issue.Hon NATHAN GUY: Certainly. On behalf of the Hon Minister Chris Tremain the bill has had its first reading and was reported back—Hon Trevor Mallard: No. I move.Hon NATHAN GUY: I move that the Inquiries Bill be now read a second time. I have already done that. The bill has had its first reading and was reported back from the Government Administration Committee in 2009. The bill was put on hold in 2010 while the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy was under way. During that time the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes was also established. It was important that both those inquiries could do their work without Parliament discussing their powers—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I do not want to interrupt the member but I am now entirely confused. I have a copy of the bill which is in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Chris Tremain told me yesterday that it was in his name.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is tabled. It is on the Table.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The copy of the bill that was supplied to the Opposition was in the name of Chris Tremain.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let us just progress. OK? The Hon Nathan Guy.Hon Trevor Mallard: He has to start again.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No he does not have to start again.Hon NATHAN GUY: We have now had the opportunity to review the bill in light of lessons learnt during the royal commissions. The Government has developed Supplementary Order Paper 330 to incorporate several changes identified during this process which I will address in more detail soon.The Inquiries Bill was developed following a comprehensive review of the law by the New Zealand Law Commission. I would like to thank the Law Commission for that work. The bill will reform and modernise the law relating to public inquiries. It does this by repealing provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 that relate to the appointment of commissions of inquiry and royal commissions of inquiry. Two new types of inquiry—public and Government—will replace the current commissions of inquiry and non-statutory ministerial inquiries. The bill also continues to recognise and provide for royal commissions established under the letters patent. Government inquiries that report directly to a Minister are likely to deal with more immediate issues than public inquiries. They should be able to investigate an issue and come back to the Minister with a quick authoritative answer. Public inquiries which include royal commissions are appropriate for more complex matters of public importance. The billsets out updated powers protections and immunities that will be available to all inquiries established under the new legislation. Those are aimed at giving inquiries the tools they need to carry out an inquiry effectively and efficiently while ensuring that those participating in an inquiry are adequately protected.It is important that this bill progresses quickly because a Government inquiry into the Fonterra whey protein concentrate contamination incident will be better placed to investigate that incident with the powers provided for in the bill. I do appreciate the parties that have indicated their support for this.The bill was referred to the Government Administration Committee in July 2009. The committee received only one submission from the public law committee of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Law Society. However I note that the Law Commission undertook an extensive consultation process in its review of public inquiries and the wide range of views it heard were no doubt reflected in the development of the bill.The committee recommended a number of minor amendments to the bill. The committee supports these amendments which will improve the bill and will allow inquiries to operate in a more fair and effective manner. I thank the committee members for that work. As introduced the bill provided that a member of an inquiry may be removed from office if found guilty of misconduct. This implies that an inquiry member must have been found guilty of misconduct through a formal process which could take longer than the length of time the inquiry has been appointed for. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to provide that a member may be removed due to his or her misconduct rather than be found guilty of misconduct. The committee also recommended amendments that will offer greater protection to those participating in inquiries. The provisions around name suppression immunities and privileges for those participating in inquiries will now apply to all participants rather than only witnesses.The bill provides that an inquiry may make an award of costs against participants who unduly lengthen or obstruct the inquiry or who add undue cost to the inquiry. The committee recommended that such orders be appealed in the High Court on a question of fact or law with no right of appeal in order to prevent additional costs and delays. The select committee also made sensible changes to the way in which the Official Information Act 1982 and the Public Records Act 2005 will apply to documents received by an inquiry.As mentioned earlier I intend to move a Supplementary Order Paper to make a small number of changes to the bill. These changes reflect lessons learnt from the last two royal commissions of inquiry. The amendments I am seeking will provide greater flexibility around the process of establishing inquiries and will clarify that a Government inquiry can have more than one appointing Minister. The amendments will clarify the process for appointing counsel to assist an inquiry. They will also clarify the discretion that an inquiry has to manage its processes in complying with the principles of natural justice. The amendments will ensure that inquiries are able to obtain information that contains expert opinion as well as matters of fact. They will also enable an inquiry to recompense participants for their reasonable expenses without having to issue a formal summons on those persons. These amendments come directly from recent practical experience of administering inquiries.I would like to thank those people involved in the two recent royal commissions who assisted the Department of Internal Affairs in developing the ideas for improving the bill. The bill will remove many of the problems associated with the current commissions of inquiry by providing an updated modern regime for public and Government inquiries in the future. I commend the bill to the House.