Walker Holly: Inquiries Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWalker Holly: Inquiries Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12638. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]HOLLY WALKER (Green):Well it is interesting to have inherited this Inquiries Bill as another member who was not present in 2009. It has indeed been languishing for a very long period of time and as we have heard was first drafted under the previous Labour Government after a comprehensive review by the Law Commission. It is a shame that it is being considered in the way that it is having been suddenly resurrected from languishing at the depths of the bottom of the Order Paper because it is a piece of legislation that deserves quite careful and considered consideration by the House in our opinion. It should not be rushed into law after languishing for years just because it has suddenly become politically expedient for the Government to do so. Actually we in the Green Party consider that there are some serious risks in passing this legislation which I will outline shortly.We know of course that the resurrection of this bill has been prompted by the recent botulism crisis at Fonterra which put our biggest export markets and indeed our whole international image and reputation at risk. The Government wants to be able to conduct an inquiry into what happened at Fonterra under more modern and better rules to apply to that inquiry than the ones that currently exist which are over 100 years old. That is fair enough although it could have actually done it a long time ago and avoided this unseemly haste which just makes it look like again New Zealand cannot get its act together in this area. The Green Party supported this legislation at its first reading because we also recognise the need to modernise and update the legislation governing the way inquiries are conducted because that legislation is over 100 years old—indeed even older than Chris Auchinvole. However we have reached the conclusion that we need to abstain today in the second reading. Our support if it is given at any future stages is by no means guaranteed because we have some serious concerns about thepowers that are contained in this bill to compel witnesses to disclose information and I want to talk about that a little bit.As we have heard the bill provides for two kinds of inquiries to be established both public inquires which include royal commissions and also Government inquiries which are driven by Ministers. Either can be established for the purposes of inquiring into any matter of public importance. The bill then sets out the terms under which such inquiries will be able to be conducted and to operate—things such as how members can be appointed to the inquiry what the reporting requirements of the inquiry are and the ability of that inquiry to call witnesses to hold hearings and crucially to compel the disclosure of evidence. The concerns of the Green Party focus on the powers granted to all inquiries by this bill but in particular what these will mean in practice when employed in Government inquiries which are to be driven by Ministers.In general the bill promotes a high level of public transparency and disclosure which we support. It appears to operate under an assumption that information will be made public unless there is a good reason not to. We do appreciate that the Labour Party intends to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper to clarify this. But we have serious concerns about the powers granted to all types of inquiries Government and public to compel witnesses to hand over evidence documents and other materials. I refer here to clause 21 “Powers to obtain information” which says: “An inquiry may as it thinks appropriate for the purposes of the inquiry—(a) require any person to—(i) produce any documents or things in that person’s possession or control or copies of those documents or things:” and it goes on to talk about how copies can be made and how a person must provide information to the inquiry and verify that by statutory declaration.We can also look at clause 23 which says: “An inquiry—(a) may on its own initiative or on the application of another person order any person to disclose to any person participating in the inquiry any specified document information or thing that the person has produced before the inquiry;”. So that is quite a serious level of compulsion that inquiries will have once this legislation is in place.It comes along with quite serious offences and penalties. If we look at clauses 30 and 31: “Every person commits an offence who intentionally—(a) fails to attend the inquiry … (c) fails to produce any document or thing required by order of the inquiry: (d) destroys evidence …”. And a person who does any of those things and who commits an offence against that section may be liable to a fine of up to $10000 and could have contempt against the inquiry proceedings initiated against them in the High Court.Let us just think about this in relation to a high-profile recent inquiry which is the Henry inquiry into the leak of the Kitteridge report into the Government Communications Security Bureau. Presumably under this new legislation this would be a Government inquiry and it would have all the powers set out under clause 21 to compel persons to appear before the inquiry and to provide evidence to that inquiry. Members will recall that the Henry inquiry did not have the authority to compel anyone to do anything but because the Prime Minister had indicated to his Ministers that he expected them to comply the inquiry was able to obtain Ministers’ phone and email records. However it should not have obtained the email and phone records of a member of Parliament although it did. Nor should it have obtained the phone or swipe card records of a journalist although it did. Those matters have now been referred to the Privileges Committee. Although this Inquiries Bill does provide some protections for privileged information including parliamentary privilege it is not at all clear that parliamentary privilege would be sufficient to prevent under this legislation—if the Henry inquiry had been conducted under this legislation—the inquiry from compelling an MP to disclose his or her emails or indeed from compelling a journalist to disclose his or her sources.This afternoon the Green Party has sought clarification from Minister Tremain’s office and we have not received a response. Possibly that is because that was the wrong Minister. I do not know. But we do need to hear from whichever Minister is in charge of the bill about this very important issue before we can support this bill in any future stages.Although we are very much in favour of openness and transparency I need to be very clear that we acknowledge the rights of MPs to operate independently from the Government and for their communications with their constituents to be protected and we acknowledge the very important right of journalists to protect their sources. We have serious concerns that the bill may actually inadvertently undermine these rights. It seems as though under this legislation if the equivalent of the Henry inquiry was held it could have compelled Peter Dunne to release his emails it could have compelled Parliamentary Service to release phone and email records and swipe card information and it could have compelled Andrea Vance to reveal her source. If she refused which I am sure she would have done because she is a very principled journalist she could have been pinged with a fine of up to $10000 and have had contempt proceedings initiated against her in the High Court and that is very concerning. So we need some response from the Government about this. Is this intended? If not we need to see some changes to the legislation to clarify that. There also seems to be nothing in the legislation that would protect MPs from having to disclose details of communications with their constituents if they were compelled to do so by an inquiry and that begins to impinge very closely on our ability as members of Parliament to carry out our role.It seems like these issues just simply were not anticipated by the Law Commission by the previous Government by Parliament when this was first debated or by the Government Administration Committee. I suppose that that is not surprising because it did not have the topical example in front of it that we have in front of us but given that topical example and given the current political context and the fact that Ministers will be the drivers of Government inquiries under this legislation we are very concerned about these provisions and we will need some compelling assurances from the Minister and probably changes in the Committee stage by Supplementary Order Papers in order to be able to support this bill any further. I urge my colleagues from across the House to actually take a close look at the issues that I have raised this evening and seriously consider whether the bill needs amendment in these areas and clarification on these important issues before we can proceed.In principle modernising the laws governing public inquiries is a necessary and positive step and a strong emphasis on openness and transparency in those inquiries is encouraged. That is why we supported the bill at its first reading and why we would like to support it through its remaining stages. But there are very fundamental constitutional and democratic principles at stake on the matter of what the bill can compel witnesses to disclose to inquiries which I think need very careful consideration by this House and by this House in Committee when it gets to that stage before it proceeds any further.