Dyson Ruth:Inquiries Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth:Inquiries Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12728. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Mr Chairman that has got to be the first time that people have thought that I have spoken too quietly. This is extraordinary. I think that is worth recording inHansard this evening.I am wishing to take a call on Part 2 of the Inquiries Bill. As you have quite rightly pointed out this covers just clauses 6 7 8 and 9 and they are pretty operational in a way but there are just a couple of points that I want to bring to the attention of the Committee. The first in clause 6 relates to the “Types of inquiry”. This was discussed in relation to the purpose of the bill as well but it is obviously relevant to Part 2.The purpose of this legislation is to look at the sorts of inquiries that we are able to set up in New Zealand the scope of them their rights their privileges their ability to call witnesses etc. This part Part 2 goes further into that area. Let me give you an example. It specifies the types of inquiries that can be undertaken under this bill: “Royal commissions established under the authority of the Letters Patent constituting the office of the Governor-General”; “public inquiries which are established ...”; “government inquiries which are established ...”; “The Governor-General may by Order in Council establish a public inquiry for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting on any matter of public importance”; and a Minister can just by aGazette notification establish a Government inquiry again for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting on any matter of public importance.I know that there are a few jokes about different political parties and about the number of inquiries that some parties might like or the number of royal commissions that other parties might call for but from my perspective I actually think that it is a really important part of our democratic process. That is why this bill and in particular the specificity that is outlined in Part 2 are so important to the operations of our democracy. If people see a situation that happens and feel that it is something bad—it could just be something quite minor but bad or something really really serious and tragic and bad—in a robust democracy they want to know what happened and why.Often that is not possible through our standard parliamentary processes. A select committee for example may institute an inquiry but again we do not have within the select committee process the ability either through expert witnesses or references—orthe ability to call witnesses and require people to come under oath. Select committees may not be the appropriate bodies to get that element of truth. Of course I think that it is still quite unfortunate but it still happens that despite our MMP environment select committee inquiries sometimes become opportunities for political grandstanding. I think that is actually a rather disappointing outcome of an inquiry because they really should be the opportunity for members of different parties to look at a particular issue of concern hear the facts and work together to see if a problem can be resolved or information can be brought to light and shared for the betterment of our citizens.In that first section in Part 2 clause 6 it talks about those different types of inquiries that can be instigated under the Inquiries Bill. Then in the next clause clause 7 it talks about the specific matters to be specified in the instrument establishing the inquiry—so what sort of matters can be discussed and what sort of inquiry would be appropriate. Then the rest of this part is primarily operational. It talks about whether a member of a public inquiry can be removed from that office and under what circumstances and what happens if there is a vacancy if somebody resigns or if for some other reason they cannot continue. I think that this is a really important part of the bill because it does really explain how the purposes in Part 1 are going to be operationalised.I was reflecting on the earlier contribution about why this bill has taken so long. We know the serious and good reason that it has come before the House right at this very time and that is because of the Fonterra issues. I am totally supportive of the light being shone on all aspects of that concern so that we can give ourselves and people overseas buying our products complete confidence about the safety of our exports. But I did wonder what the cause of the delay has been between 2009 and now. I might be a little suspicious. It might just be the political part of my nature unusually coming to the fore but I do think that the reason that the Government has delayed this bill being progressed for so long is that there have been so many issues in the last 5 years of the National-led Government that deserve an inquiry where people in this Parliament people outside of this Parliament and members of the public—voting thinking challenging and respected citizens in our society—have said: how can this happen in our country? Why can we not have an inquiry or more important why is an inquiry not being considered? Any of these forms of inquiries outlined in Part 2 would have been appropriate.One that is a very recent occurrence is the deal that the Government did over Skycity where there are all sorts of unknown elements where there are stories about the deal that the Prime Minister did with Skycity over dinner and where a lot of my constituents I know say to me: “How is that possible? How is it possible that the laws of New Zealand would have been traded away over a dinner—a casual dinner—and next thing we have legislation being pushed through to change our laws in response to a deal?”. In many countries and in comparable situations that action would have triggered an inquiry of some sort. I have to say that I doubt whether it would be a ministerial inquiry.I very much doubt whether the Minister of Internal Affairs—who I think is responsible actually for this very legislation even though last night I know there was some confusion. Nathan Guy was speaking to the bill—Hon Trevor Mallard: He thought he was in charge.Hon RUTH DYSON: He thought he was in charge and then the Hon Trevor Mallard drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that when the bill had been published it was in the name of another Minister the Hon Chris Tremain. So then the Hon Nathan Guy apologised and said: “Well it is in his name so I’ll speak on his behalf.” But then the Chairperson notified the Committee that actually the bill was in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy who had not noticed that.Hon Trevor Mallard: But he still notwithstanding that should have said “on behalf of Chris Tremain”.Hon RUTH DYSON: Well if he should have said “on behalf of Chris Tremain” I think we may need an inquiry into who is responsible for this legislation because I am completely puzzled. I am very confident that it is not the Hon Simon Bridges who is in the chair because if he was in charge of this bill he would know something about it. He would have taken a call. He would have contributed to the debate I am sure because he is not short on coming forward on these matters as I have noticed in other debates in the House.The instance of the Skycity deal where our legislation was basically traded away by the Prime Minister over dinner with representatives of Skycity means there is a convention centre being built in Auckland but it is in exchange for hundreds more pokie machines being allowed in Skycity against our current regulatory regime. In some situations the Deputy Auditor-General actually looked at that issue and said that the contract to build the convention centre was flawed it was not transparent it was not even-handed and it established and demonstrated deficiencies on the part of both Ministers and officials.That is quite serious stuff and in some countries I know that there would be a call and it would be responded to for an independent inquiry. No such inquiry has been triggered by the Government and I think that is a shame. The whole country knows that that was a shonky deal but we do not have a process where that sort of debate can be triggered.So I think in fact that even though this is good and well-considered legislation—legislation instigated by the Hon Annette King and introduced to this House by the Hon Rick Barker which went to a select committee chaired by the Hon David Parker with Grant Robertson as the junior member from Labour on that committee—I would like to hear from one of the members of the then Government Administration Committee or the Minister in charge of the bill whoever he may be. I would like to hear whether any of those members consider that this bill deals adequately with what I see as a deficiency in the public accountability of the Government and the transparency of deals—