Robertson Grant: Inquiries Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Inquiries Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12636. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):I was about to do something else but I will take a call. Before I commence on the substantive part of the Inquiries Bill I just wanted to clarify where we had got to on exactly who it is who is in charge of this bill. Quite frankly I do not think anyone is in charge of the bill at the moment but according to what we are hearing from the other side of the House about who is in charge of the bill it seems as though we have to transport ourselves back in time which is something that we have to do a great deal of in this bill to when Nathan Guy was in his glorious tenure as the Minister of Internal Affairs. In actual fact he was in charge of this bill when he was the Minister of Internal Affairs. He is no longer the Minister of Internal Affairs and is now in charge of primary industries as I think we are all aware—well at least he is loosely in charge of primary industries. That is why he came to be delivering the speech because the bill was in his name.That is the explanation that we have been given and presumably when we get to the Committee stage of the bill Chris Tremain will morph into place and will lead us through Supplementary Order Paper 330. Having said all of that that is the explanation that we have been given. It is somewhat undermined by the Order Paper for today which actually lists Chris Tremain as the Minister in charge of the bill for its second reading. So it would be fair to say that the handling of the bill at this point by the Government leaves a little to be desired but that is reflective of the entire approach that the National Government has had to this bill.I want people to go back to 20 November 2009 which was quite some time ago. It was so long ago that Aaron Gilmore was here. He was a valued member of the National Party caucus at that point.Hon Trevor Mallard: Paul Quinn.GRANT ROBERTSON: Paul Quinn was here as well. All the stars were in play. Chris Auchinvole was not even grey at that stage actually. He did not have a grey hair on his head in 2009. If we want some cultural reference points South Africa were the world rugby champions at that point in 2009. Kim Dotcom had not even arrived so the Prime Minister had not worked out that he had to forget who he was yet—he had not even arrived. Ian Fletcher was just an old school friend of John Key in 2009. He was not running a major security agency.Chris Auchinvole: Mr Speaker is this about the bill?GRANT ROBERTSON: Very much about the bill Mr Auchinvole because in 2009 on 20 November when Chris Auchinvole still had his dark locks of hair that was when this bill was reported back to the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: But Maggie’s was the same colour.GRANT ROBERTSON: Maggie Barry was not with us then—Maggie Barry was not with us in 2009. It is that long ago. That was when the Government reported back this bill. It came from a select committee that I was a member of the Government Administration Committee. Mr Bakshi was on the committee.Hon Trevor Mallard: Still is.GRANT ROBERTSON: He is still on that committee.Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s a constant force.GRANT ROBERTSON: He is a constant force. Nikki Kaye—she was on the committee. She is a Minister now. John Hayes was on the committee as well which made it very entertaining. That was 2009 when the bill came back and it is remarkable to those on this side of the House that the Government having sat around with the Inquiries Bill there suddenly bursts into life in the wake of the Fonterra crisis. It is hopeless management of this legislation—legislation that I think has widespread support across the House.It is obviously true that the 1908 Commissions of Inquiry Act is well out of date. It does not cover for the way in which people would expect and want inquiries to be done. On this side of the House we obviously accept and support the premise behind the bill. As my colleague Mr Mallard noted it emerged from the Law Commission in May 2008. Geoffrey Palmer at that point was in charge of the Law Commission and its report went through and quite clearly articulated the need for something between royal commissions on the one hand and commissions of inquiry with very little powers on the other. What has been established by the Law Commission then taken through the process of policy development and legislation is a range of options now that mean that we can have the right inquiry for the right situation. It is quite clear that as enabled under this legislation the ability for instance for witnesses to be called on oath is a very important example of a kind of a power that people would want in an inquiry.Annette King who was then the Minister responsible for the Law Commission got this in May 2008—[Interruption ] No she was the Minister responsible for the Law Commission I understand in 2008. She identified this issue and moved swiftly I might say so that by September 2008 Rick Barker who was the Minister of Internal Affairs was able to come to the House and run down to the Office of the Clerk and put the bill on the Table and there it was in September 2008. Unfortunately there was an event in November 2008 that we do not dwell on which meant that it moved into the hands of the Government which initially moved quite quickly to get it off to the select committee but unfortunately it has languished significantly since that time.Mr Mallard has already alluded to Supplementary Order Paper 332 which is on the Table which we will debate when we come to the Committee stage. I think it is important to address the issue that lies behind that Supplementary Order Paper and that is the question of the level of transparency around these inquiries. We are giving increased powers for inquiries to be called and according to the bill in front of us those inquiries are subject to the Official Information Act. That is exactly as it should be.But there will be occasions where the nature of the inquiry means that either evidence or even in some cases potentially findings of an inquiry need to be kept confidential. Trevor Mallard mentioned briefly the Louise Nicholas - inspired inquiry into police misconduct. That would quite clearly be an inquiry where aspects of the evidence would be kept secret. That is an important thing to do. So the provisions that are contained in clause 15 of the bill are merited but what concerns us on this side of the House is that we do not believe that the presumption that lies behind clause 15 is as good as it could be.We think that there should be a presumption of openness. We think it should be the default position that an inquiry the evidence that comes to it and the findings from it should be open to the public. That is the spirit in which we would expect these inquiries to be undertaken. So Trevor Mallard is proposing a Supplementary Order Paper that puts in place language that says the default presumption is one of openness. Yes there may well be occasions when we need to make things secret but in the order of events as we would normally have them it would be open. We think that is an important change. It means that being subject to the Official Information Act remains the default position but there will be occasions using the powers under clause 15 for there to be matters kept secret. We hope that the Government—whoever it is who is in charge of the Inquiries Bill tomorrow—will come to the House and treat that Supplementary Order Paper with the seriousness that we put it forward.We do welcome this legislation coming back to the House. There have been a large number of matters on which there could or should have been inquiries since 2009. I have a member’s bill in the ballot to have a proper inquiry into theRena disaster. Ibelieve that that is long justified. John Hayes cannot remember theRena disaster it would seem. But that was a significant event. It was the greatest environmental catastrophe that we have had in New Zealand waters and it should have been inquired into by now. The inquiries that are capable of being formed under this bill would have been useful in that instance.There are a lot of other things that have happened under this Government’s watch that could have seen an inquiry. If we actually go back to 2009 there could have been an inquiry into Richard Worth. I do not know whether anyone remembers Richard Worth but he was here when this bill was going through. There could have been an inquiry into what happened with him. We should have had an inquiry into the collapse of Solid Energy and the role of the Government and the Minister of State Owned Enterprises in the collapse of Solid Energy the appalling and incompetent management of our State-owned enterprises—Hon Trevor Mallard: But we probably don’t need this bill to do that.GRANT ROBERTSON: It could have been done but this bill would give a range of options for how that inquiry could take place. A range of things such as Defence Force cuts—all sorts of matters on which inquiries could be undertaken. In fact the Government actually needs all of the options that it has got here because there are so many matters that have occurred under its watch that deserve inquiry.The Labour Party will be supporting this on its second reading. We believe that the Supplementary Order Paper that Minister Tremain has put forward should be deserving of support. We do want to talk through the natural justice provisions that Mr Mallard put forward. But we would also ask all parties in the House to support Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that there is a presumption of openness in these inquiries because I believe that is what New Zealanders would expect of inquiries undertaken by the Government.