Fenton Darien: Inquiries Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fenton Darien: Inquiries Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 July 2009. Volume:656;Page:5208. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I am pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Inquiries Bill. In doing so I note that once again we are debating a Labour bill. This bill was introduced just prior to the election by a Minister in the previous Government who is now an Assistant Speaker Mr Rick Barker. So Labour did the work on this bill and it is pleasing that the National Government has had the sense to pick it up. It is fascinating that this bright shiny new National Government—although it is now starting to look a bit faded after 9 months—appears to have struggled to come up with new legislation of any substance especially after it had to own up to the inconvenient truth that tax cuts are not the answer to everything. In National’s case tax cuts are the answer to nothing except more money for the better-off. 
The bill reforms and modernises the inquiries law and follows a Law Commission review. The new forms of inquiry will replace commissions of inquiry but royal commissions will be retained under the new law recognising that the public sees those commissions as having I suppose more mana. The Inquiries Bill establishes two types of new inquiry. Public inquiries will be appointed by the Governor-General to inquire into matters of significant public importance. Government inquiries will be appointed by and report directly to a Minister and will be used for smaller and more immediate issues. Public and Government inquiries will have the same legal powers and protections. Royal commissions of inquiry are retained as a necessary measure to provide assurance to the public that a matter is being given serious independent consideration. The bill sets out the criteria for public access to inquiries and documentation. It provides for funding for legal representation for those participating in inquiries if this is seen as warranted by an inquiry and its overseeing department. It provides a range of sanctions to improve the ability to control behaviour surrounding inquiries and to avoid abuses of process. 
As I said Labour obviously supports this bill. We support the opportunity to modernise the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 which is outdated and has been amended many times thus making it confusing and difficult to administer. We support the chance for the bill to go to a select committee for consideration and have public input because that process is an important part of our democracy. It makes a nice change from some of the bills we have seen this Government ram through the House under urgency. We support this bill because public inquiries are an important and vital part of our democracy. After all New Zealand is recognised as one of the most corruption-free nations in the world and long may that continue. We support the bill because it creates more avenues for official inquiries particularly into the undemocratic behaviour of this National-ACT Government. 
I think the bill is particularly relevant at this time for the people of Auckland. I find it ironic that the Government is seeking to reform and modernise a law relating to inquiries when clearly it has little regard for the process. As my colleague Mr Hipkins has mentioned the most recent inquiry we have had is the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. The Government might as well have and probably has shredded the months and months of work and the millions of dollars spent on careful analysis of what needs to happen to take my city Auckland forward. The Auckland governance reform is the biggest change in the history of local government in Auckland and probably in our country. It is important that we get it right but as Labour has said on other occasions it is equally important that the people of Auckland have a say on their future. I do not think the select committee process substitutes for that. The process the Government has followed is undemocratic especially when the people of New Zealand were led to believe by the National Party in its manifesto at the last election that National would consult with Aucklanders once the royal commission’s findings were known. I ask again as we have time and time again in the debate over Auckland governance what the rush is. Why could the people of Auckland not have a say? We were only 3 months into the term of this Government when the report of the royal commission came out but National ignored what it promised in its manifesto. I find that incredible only 3 months into the Government. 
Everybody in this House knows that for consultation to be meaningful and genuine it must happen before the key decisions are made. But what happened? The Government came out with a very speedy response to the royal commission. It was not prepared to honour its promise to go back to the people across Auckland and acknowledge to them that it is their city that they need to be involved in the decisions about the restructuring of local government and that they would be given the opportunity to have a genuine say. That is the most recent example of a royal commission. I hope that in supporting this bill today the Government does not intend to treat other inquiries with the same contempt. 
Like my colleague Mr Hipkins I can think of many inquiries that we could be conducting under this bill. We have talked today about the extraordinary events when the Minister for Social Development and Employment breached the privacy of beneficiaries because they dared to comment on Government policy. I am absolutely gobsmacked by that breach. It is scary because it says to New Zealanders that if they criticise this Government they will be punished. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who’s next? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Exactly. Who is next? There has been an extraordinary turn of events today. A Minister cannot take public criticism of her decisions so she vindictively sets out to intimidate those who dare cross her path. 
Despite all of this the public are conducting their own inquiries into for example the adult and community education funding cuts that are taking place across New Zealand. More than 100 angry people gathered in North Shore City last week—a traditional National stronghold—to oppose these cuts; likewise 500 people gathered in Christchurch last night where National MPs at least turned up but embarrassed themselves in the process. Up and down the country the opposition to these stupid cuts is gathering steam. 
We could have many other inquiries under this bill. I would like to see an inquiry into the appointment of Dr Don Brash to lead the so-called high-level advisory committee into productivity and closing the income gap with Australia. In fact I would like Don Brash to be on permanent notice of a public inquiry so that we can keep his radical right-wing agenda under permanent supervision. We do not want a Dr Don Brash prescription. We do not want it. We have had it all before: removing the rights of workers privatising assets and slashing the public sector. Did it close the trans-Tasman gap? No it widened it. It led to wage decline high unemployment and social dysfunction. I would like to see an inquiry into the secret privatisation agenda of this Government and the Trojan Horses that have been set up to achieve it: Don Brash John Whitehead Mark Weldon and the Business Roundtable. They are all chiming in and chorusing loudly together about the need to sell off New Zealand. 
I would like to see an inquiry into other things like the cuts to workplace health and safety training under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. How many lives will be lost as a consequence of those cuts? I would like to know that that will not happen. I would like to see an inquiry into the State Sector Act and whether John Whitehead crossed the line last week when he made a speech in which he made threats to the State sector and State sector workers. I would like to see an inquiry into the Maritime Transport Act and the potential consequences of the decisions of this Government to cut funding for safety courses for recreational boaties. Will the Government guarantee that there will not be any more accidents? I do not think so. One can think of so many inquiries that could be held under this bill. How about an inquiry into why so many hundreds of jobs are lost every day while this Government sits on its hands? 
Labour supports this bill. It is a good bill; it is a Labour bill. The question in the next months will be whether the National-ACT Government will act on the recommendations of John Whitehead Mark Weldon Don Brash and the Business Roundtable.