Auchinvole Chris: Inquiries Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Inquiries Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12634. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):It is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the Inquiries Bill. I thank the Minister who introduced it—Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —both of them—and also Mr Mallard for the comments. I think he made two positive comments and that was really good. One was that he expects Labour to support this bill and I would hope that each party in the House will take the opportunity to support this bill. It is intended to modernise the law relating to public inquiries and it largely replaces the outdated Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 which sets out the legal framework in which commissions of inquiry and royal commissions of inquiry currently operate. In 2006 the Law Commission reviewed the law relating to public inquiries with a focus on commissions of inquiry and royal commissions as well as non-statutory ministerial inquiries. The reportA New Inquiries Act  recommended a new law.As the 1908 Act is over a hundred years old—Kris Faafoi: Not unlike the member.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —some of it is antiquated and some provisions outdated. In fact it was even before I was born. The amendments made over time have generally been in response to the circumstances of a particular inquiry and this means that they may resolve a very specific part of the existing Act without taking its wider context into account. Other problems identified touched on in passing by the Hon Mr Mallard were the cost and duration of commissions of inquiry and royal commissions normally assigned to the legalistic processes these commissions often adopt and a lack of flexible statutory inquiries for Ministers. These can result in higher costs increased delays and inquiries appointed outside the statutory framework lacking the powers and protections of those appointed within the statutory framework. There was a gap. The new bill as well as Supplementary Order Paper 330 will resolve these issues and will create a new more functional network.I would just like to briefly describe that because we missed that from the other side of the House but I am sure subsequent speakers will concentrate on that aspect of the bill. This bill will provide for two types of inquiry and the retaining of royal commissions. There will be public inquiries. These would be appointed by the Governor-General on major issues of concern to the public and the Government and would be a substitute for commissions of inquiry. The reports would be tabled in Parliament. There will be Government inquiries. These will be appointed by and reported directly to Ministers. They would deal with smaller and more immediate issues where a quick and authoritative answer is required.The Law Commission recommended that the ability to appoint royal commissions should be removed. I am at a bit of a loss as to why it should do that but the previous Government decided to retain them as the public views them as a very important function when matters of significant public interest are involved. All the provisions of a public inquiry will apply to royal commissions. I think that public inquiries do fill that gap that was alluded to previously. Having sat through day after day after day of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy I was very conscious of the appropriateness of it. The public places great faith in the fact that the inquiry is beyond Government beyond administration and is being viewed in the way of a royal commission. So I fully concur with the bill that there is a definite place for that level of inquiry.The changes that are proposed change credibility and sensibly address problems within our inquiries framework and these improvements are needed immediately. It will give the whey protein inquiry more flexibility to provide answers needed to the questions that have been raised about this incident both domestically and internationally. New Zealand has a sterling reputation as a credible and trusted supplier of safe suitable food to both domestic and international markets. We do need a system that will protect our reputation from criticism. Thank you.