Menu:

 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Attorney-General: Has he received any advice on whether constitutional rights and obligations of partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi apply between the Crown and the mana whenua who gifted land on which Auckland City is built; if so, what was that advice?
 
 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I move, That the Inquiries Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Public inquiries have always played an important role in New Zealand society for much of our history. For instance, the first formal inquiry held in New Zealand took place in 1864 to determine the best site for the seat of Government. Obviously, the inquiry reached the right conclusion. Since that time, public inquiries have continued to provide an independent means by which to investigate matters of importance. The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 sets out the legal framework within which commissions of inquiry and royal commissions of inquiry currently operate.

However, it has become clear that the law relating to public inquiries is not without its problems. In 2006 the Law Commission began to review this law. In its 2008 report on that review, entitled A New Inquiries Act, the Law Commission concluded that the Commissions of Inquiry Act was antiquated and contained confusing provisions. In addition, the legalistic and adversarial practices that have arisen with commission proceedings were seen as potentially adding to the cost and delay associated with inquiries. The Law Commission also noted the need for a flexible form of statutory inquiry that Ministers could use for the less complex, discrete issues that require independent investigation.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: We’re going to have a few of those with old “Richo”, I think.

Hon Darren Hughes: Discreet! Ha, ha!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Law Commission observed that there has been a move towards the use of so-called ministerial inquiries, which take place outside of the statutory framework. And I can see why members opposite are getting so excited, because most of them were the subject of ministerial inquiries over the last 3 years. We had Mr Phillip Field--

Hon Annette King: Two minutes! It took 2 minutes for you to become nasty.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think the “Minister for Common Sense” was involved. She was too busy suppressing the freedom of New Zealanders with the Electoral Finance Act. Ministerial inquiries can be unsatisfactory, as these inquiries do not have the powers to obtain evidence and must therefore rely on witness cooperation in order to be effective. There are also no immunities for those who take part in ministerial inquiries. I will say to the member for Rongotai that if she promises to stop her incessant, inane interjections, I may vote for her for mayor.

The Law Commission recommended that the law relating to public inquiries be reformed and modernised through the introduction of a new inquiries Act, and this bill responds to that recommendation. The bill provides for the establishment of two new types of inquiries.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Speak up! We can’t hear you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: We will have public inquiries, I say to Mr Cosgrove, and we will have Government inquiries, while recognising and providing for royal commissions that are established under letters patent.

Public inquiries will replace commissions of inquiry, and will be appointed for matters of significant public importance—[Interruption]—like whether the former member for Ōtaki will ever grow up. Public inquiries will be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. The reports of public inquiries will be tabled in Parliament. The provisions of the bill relating to public inquiries will also apply to royal commissions.

Hon Darren Hughes: When does the band strike up?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am enjoying it!

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you are. I would like to hear what you are saying. Interjections should be rare and reasonable. There is not much time to go, and I would like to hear what the member is saying.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Government inquiries will be appointed by, and report directly to, a Minister, and those inquiries will deal with smaller and more immediate issues, where a quick and authoritative answer is required from an independent inquiry. The appointment of Government inquiries and their terms of reference will be notified in the Gazette.

This bill provides that all types of inquiries established under the new legislation will have the same legal powers and protections available to them. Those include the powers to obtain evidence, and immunity from liability for inquirers for anything that is done in the course of exercising their functions, unless the inquirer has acted in bad faith. There is a new provision covering legal assistance for certain persons who appear before public inquiries—like Thai workers. Legal aid is not available to those who participate in inquiries, yet there are circumstances where the person may need legal representation or advice in order to protect his or her interests. Inquiries are to be given the ability to recommend to their overseeing department--

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could give the House some advice on a very serious matter. The member is quite an important member of the executive. He is the Attorney-General, and he is commenting on matters that are before a court at the present time. I think that is a most unwise thing for him to do. Could you advise the House as to whether that was an appropriate matter for him to raise, in the case of--

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member, with his legal background, will be able to determine whether it was appropriate.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Inquiries are to be given the ability to recommend to their overseeing department that funding will be provided for legal representation, and it will be the decision of the overseeing department as to whether to grant such funding from the budget for the inquiry.

The current Act refers to concepts regarding parties and persons who are entitled to be heard. Those participants have an automatic right to appear and be heard, and then to be represented before commissions, and that can add to the cost and to the adversarial nature of inquiries. Under this bill those concepts will be replaced with the ability for inquirers to decide whether to conduct interviews, call witnesses, hold hearings, and so on. However, inquiries will be able to appoint core participants where it is identified that a particular class of persons has a particular interest in the inquiry. Core participants will still have the right to give evidence and make submissions, but the manner in which they do so is to be determined by inquirers. Under the provisions of the bill, people who appear before inquiries will have the same privileges as those who appear in civil proceedings as is provided in Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act 2006.

The bill contains new and updated offences to improve the ability of inquirers to control behaviour surrounding inquiries and avoid abuses of their processes. Some of those offences are already contained within the existing Act. However, some new offences—such as intentionally preventing a witness from giving evidence, and threatening, or seeking to influence, a witness before an inquiry—have been added. Those offences will be summary offences, with charges to be laid by the police on reference from an inquirer. The penalty for committing any of those offences will be increased from $1,000 to $10,000.

The bill also sets out procedures for public access to inquiries and to their documentation. At present, information held by commissions of inquiry and royal commissions is not subject to the Official Information Act 1982. This bill provides that once an inquiry has been completed, documentation from both public inquiries and Government inquiries will be subject to the Official Information Act. However, information will be able to be withheld on specified grounds, such as where a submission provided to an inquiry contains sensitive information.

Sections 2 and 15 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which relate to the appointment of commissions of inquiry and royal commissions, will be repealed. However, the remainder of the Act will be left in force in the interim, as a number of other statutory bodies, such as the Waitangi Tribunal, take their powers from that Act. I particularly refer to clause 37, which provides for a mandatory review in a few years’ time of the continuing application of the Act.

  • Debate interrupted.
 
 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree that it is desirable to introduce the provision requiring prisoners to serve two-thirds of their sentence before being eligible for parole as opposed to the current one-third; if not, why not?
 
 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That the Patents Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration. I suppose the first issue to be confronted is the pronunciation of the word “patent”. Some people say “pay-tent” while others say “pat-ent”. Indeed, I am reminded of the story of three leading barristers who were called to the inner Bar many years ago. Mr Turner advised the court that he had in his hand letters “pay-tent”; Mr Leicester advised the court that he had letters “pat-ent”, and Mr Leary advised the court that he had in his hand a document essentially similar to the other two! This bill reforms a very important aspect of New Zealand’s intellectual property regime.