Bridges Simon:Inquiries Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBridges Simon:Inquiries Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12730. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):I want to take a very brief call because I think as members all across the Chamber have acknowledged the Inquiries Bill is a non-controversial bill. All parties I think have indicated that they are voting for it.I really just want to address the valid concern that the member Ruth Dyson has just raised and address that square on. I probably will not take up all of the time. What the member said was that—and I think the Independent member Brendan Horan also asked questions on this—well OK the original law is from 1908. Even the older members of this House were not in Parliament at that time. I think they remember it from listening to earlier calls. They were not in the House. Of course the history has been relayed. In 2006 the Law Commission had a look reviewed the law and recommended a new law. Of course it is only now that we really get to the final stages. I think an interesting question asked is why it has taken this much time. Well the simple matters are that as the member Ruth Dyson has said of course the whey protein incident and the issues around that—which I think the member has talked eloquently about—absolutely lead to the desirability to expedite this law and to pass it. As the member said I think no one in this House would argue against that.What is also true though and what has not been talked about this evening is that the law was also quite consciously put on hold by the Government from 2010. The reason for that is very simple. I think Ruth Dyson talked about both the Pike River royal commission—obviously an exceptionally serious situation which we still deal with andwhich I as Minister of Labour deal with on a nearly daily basis—and of course also the Canterbury earthquakes royal commission. Again we in this House all understand very well the issues associated with that. As a result of those royal commissions a conscious decision was made by the Government to put this law on hold to enable us to review really the lessons learnt from the chairs and from the members on those commissions so that we—I was hesitating to say the word “learnings”—Hon Trevor Mallard: What changes were made as a result of those?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I can go through them. I am actually not going to. I have notes on those. There were a series of changes—procedural changes. I think even the member the Hon Trevor Mallard would acknowledge changes in Supplementary Order Paper 330 on this part I think it is that are sensible and that are uncontroversial. Of course later on there will also be Supplementary Order Paper 332 from the Hon Trevor Mallard which this side of the Chamber will be supporting. I suppose it is proof that even a broken clock is right twice a day. We will be supporting that—Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh now you’ve just added 12 hours to the debate!Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well it is an oldie but a goody. It is an oldie but a goody. The truth of the matter is that I have explained the time frame for this bill and why we are where we are today. There are some Supplementary Order Papers that I think deal with the findings of the royal commissions and improve this law quite considerably. I just thought it was worthwhile explaining those matters to the Committee.