Mallard Trevor: Inquiries Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Inquiries Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12633. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I am confused. We were told yesterday that the Inquiries Bill would be in the name of Chris Tremain. He put out a press release about it. He was kind enough over the weekend to have consultations with me as the Labour internal affairs spokesperson seeing as it was in the name of the Minister of Internal Affairs. Mr Deputy Speaker I apologise that I did indicate to you that the bill was in the name of Mr Tremain. I accept that the second reading copy of the bill is in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy but sitting on the Table of the House is a copy of the Supplementary Order Paper 330 and what we are going to be considering tomorrow and it is in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain—it is in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain. So the question I ask is: does it depend on which day of the week it is or is this a pathetic approach to give a Minister who is being regarded as being generally useless in the primary industries area and in the area of fisheries something that makes him look good?Well if that is the case it has failed because that member just looks more like the idiot that he actually is. He is the village—[Interruption ] Well maybe we are a House of Representatives and Nathan Guy is a representative of the village idiots. The approach that he is taking to this legislation to this inquiry and to his portfolio generally is at a level of competence that is just not acceptable for a Minister of the Crown in the realm of New Zealand. It is not acceptable in New Zealand and the embarrassment the Labour Opposition has is that because this legislation is actually quite good—Chris Auchinvole: Oh! Hooray! Thank you so much.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well it was developed by the Hon Sir Geoffrey Winston Russell Palmer. He I am told by the Prime Minister is a useless lawyer who does not know what he is talking about. Yet the Government picks up his piece of legislation—the thing he drafted the bill on which he gave a report to Annette King a bill that the Hon Rick Barker introduced to the Parliament—and wants to go forward with it. So is he a good lawyer or not? Does he know what he is talking about? Well the Prime Minister says no and Chris Tremain or Nathan Guy—whichever it is today or tomorrow—says that in fact he is.There is no doubt in my experience as the Minister of State Services and the Minister for Economic Development that there is a gap in our inquiries procedures and the gap is in particular around inquiries that are not into something related to the State sector or the Public Service. If it involves the State sector or the Public Service I think that our current inquiry system is appropriate. If one looks at the State sector legislation and the powers between the Prime Minister and the State Services Commissioner working together I do not have much doubt that they can set up an inquiry in the appropriate form and with the appropriate powers without too many problems at all. But when the issue is one such as Pike River or maybe the calculations around the fisheries; maybe possibly around Skycity and some of the bodgie dealings there; and certainly theRena we see in those areas the inability of the private sector to deal with the damage it caused. Clearly theRena was an environmental disaster but it was not something on the scale of Pike River. But the principles are the same: there was not a midpoint type of inquiry that sat between a ministerial inquiry which does not have the power to send for people to require evidence etc. and a royal commission which I think most of us would say in relation to theRena was probably unnecessary and too formal and probably too slow as well. I think there is a type of inquiry that is somewhere in between and would be appropriate for something like that.In my experience in Government we had a number of issues that we looked at and we probably erred on the side of going upstairs and getting judges involved and having commissions for things that might not otherwise have required commissions as a resultof that gap in our legislation. I am not quite sure now whether I should be addressing Chris Tremain or Nathan Guy because of the process that has been outlined. I just want to also say I was advised—I do not normally disclose the advice that happens between the Leader of the House and me—to communicate with Chris Tremain on this legislation as he was the Minister in charge of the bill and in fact I spent a number of occasions both on the phone and by text communicating with Chris Tremain and the Leader of the House was the person who indicated to me that he was the right person to communicate with.Grant Robertson: That’s where you went wrong.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well I think to be fair to Mr Brownlee Mr Tremain thought he was in charge of the legislation after Cabinet yesterday. After Cabinet yesterday he put out a press release as the Minister in charge of the legislation. But I suppose it is one of those things—the only constant thing is change and what we are seeing is a bit of change in this area. But I say to the Minister in charge of the bill—and I will work on the assumption seeing Nathan Guy is in the House today that Mr Guy will be able to communicate this point—that what I indicated was that we did want to have a bit more discussion around the natural justice provisions. I think we are just about convinced that the amendments that were proposed to us by Chris Tremain—and can I just by way of interjection across the House ask Nathan Guy whether he stands by the amendments that were given to the House in the name of Mr Tremain. Does he propose to go forward with the—Hon Nathan Guy: The Supplementary Order Papers?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Supplementary Order Papers.Hon Nathan Guy: Yes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: He is. OK. I think we are just about there. The main question we had in that particular area was to do with the natural justice provisions. We made the concerns known to Chris Tremain and he came back to us and I think we are just about convinced. In some of these things there is a balance around the speed of the inquiry and the importance of getting it right.But there is one area and I want to make it clear to Nathan Guy that Supplementary Order Paper 332 is on the Table and is in my name. There is a discussion there on the question of whether or not clause 15 relates to a situation where there is an exclusion of the public or to a situation where things are being held in secret. I can accept that in a lot of cases—the Nicholas case would be a very good example—it is appropriate to have some issues dealt with in a private session with evidence suppressed and with confidentiality guaranteed. But the view of the Labour Party is that on balance there should be a presumption of openness and transparency around the inquiry. We are pretty sure from the discussions that have been had previously that the Government is on that page as well. What we are not convinced of is that clause 15 as it is currently drafted makes it clear that that is the balance.I want to leave it with the Minister and say that we are looking forward to being supportive. This is legislation that we do want to get right so it lasts beyond Governments and so that we can use it later next year if we have to and for the inquiries that come up. But I ask him to look at that. It might not be perfectly drafted and I take responsibility for that but if the principle can be adopted by the Government and there can be better drafting in order to do it it will help the smoother passage of the legislation.