Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Attorney-General: Why has he refused to provide funding to the earthquake victims’ families who want legal representation at the Royal Commission of Inquiry?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : The Government has decided not to fund legal representation because the royal commission is taking a very comprehensive approach to ensure that families are engaged with the inquiry. The royal commission has been resourced appropriately for that engagement. Counsel assisting the royal commission are ensuring that the families’ interests are fairly represented and are taken into account. The commission has engaged a families’ liaison person, who is doing very good work. In addition, commission chair Justice Mark Cooper has met personally with victims’ families at their request. The Government is determined to find the cause of the building failures that caused this tragedy in Canterbury, and that is why it has constituted a royal commission of inquiry—the highest-level independent fact-finding body that there is.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the Government did the right thing in providing legal representation to the Pike River families, can the Minister confirm that the circumstances that confront both the Pike River families and the Christchurch quake families are precisely the same in that, first, each group lost loved ones in tragic circumstances; second, each has--
Hon Dr Nick Smith: One’s a natural disaster.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I know interjections are allowed but this is a rather serious issue, and I would have thought it should be dealt with in that way.
Mr SPEAKER: The initial interjections were not actually very intrusive, and the member chose to stop. I ask members, though, to be reasonable. This is a serious question. The member may start his question again.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to carry on, please.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the Government did the right thing in providing legal representation to the Pike River families, can the Minister confirm that the circumstances that confronted both the Pike River families and the Christchurch quake families are precisely the same, in that, first, each group lost loved ones in tragic circumstances; second, each has a strong desire to find out how and why this occurred; third, each wants a robust inquiry directed at establishing effective and meaningful preventive measures; and, fourth, each wants direct involvement in the inquiry, with the aid of independent counsel of their choosing; if he argues that the circumstances are not the same, could he advise the House precisely what the distinction is in respect of each tragedy that compelled the Government to treat the respective family groups differently?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Let me make it clear that I fully accept, and understand, the way that this tragedy has affected the lives of those who were unfortunate enough to experience the death of friends and loved ones. Each royal commission deals, however, with particular circumstances. I think, for the member’s benefit, I could say this: a closer analogy to the kind of commission of inquiry we are engaged with in the case of the Canterbury earthquakes is the 2009 royal commission into the Victorian bushfires, in which the kinds of arrangements for engagement with the royal commission were the same there as are proposed here. But I certainly do not seek to diminish the extent of the tragedy and its effects on those poor families.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: If the victims’ families do not require independent legal representation because royal commissions of inquiry are “inquisitorial in nature” and “engaged in fact-finding”, as he said in a letter to the quake families, why then has he provided legal representation to Pike River victims’ families for their royal commission?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Because, as I have said in both answers already given, it depends on the particular circumstances. The better analogy here is not with Pike River; it is with the Victorian royal commission, in which counsel assisting the commission liaised with families in order to assist those families through that particular process.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given he said last year: “We recognise the importance of the families of the Pike River victims being represented and participating in the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and will move to see that happens.”, does that mean he does not recognise the importance of earthquake victims’ families being independently—not with counsel assisting the commission, but independently—represented in this royal commission inquiry?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I certainly recognise the need for those families to be heard by the royal commission. That is exactly why Justice Mark Cooper and the other commissioners have personally met with them, and why there is a liaison person, who, as I said, is doing very good work, and who is keeping in constant contact with them. Counsel assisting the commission will be representing them, and I believe that it is that combination of matters that will ensure these poor people do have the chance to make their submissions to the royal commission.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the Government did the right thing in providing legal representation to the Pike River families, can the Minister confirm that the circumstances that confront both the Pike River families and the Christchurch quake families are precisely the same in that, first, each group lost loved ones in tragic circumstances; second, each has--
Hon Dr Nick Smith: One’s a natural disaster.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I know interjections are allowed but this is a rather serious issue, and I would have thought it should be dealt with in that way.
Mr SPEAKER: The initial interjections were not actually very intrusive, and the member chose to stop. I ask members, though, to be reasonable. This is a serious question. The member may start his question again.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to carry on, please.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the Government did the right thing in providing legal representation to the Pike River families, can the Minister confirm that the circumstances that confronted both the Pike River families and the Christchurch quake families are precisely the same, in that, first, each group lost loved ones in tragic circumstances; second, each has a strong desire to find out how and why this occurred; third, each wants a robust inquiry directed at establishing effective and meaningful preventive measures; and, fourth, each wants direct involvement in the inquiry, with the aid of independent counsel of their choosing; if he argues that the circumstances are not the same, could he advise the House precisely what the distinction is in respect of each tragedy that compelled the Government to treat the respective family groups differently?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Let me make it clear that I fully accept, and understand, the way that this tragedy has affected the lives of those who were unfortunate enough to experience the death of friends and loved ones. Each royal commission deals, however, with particular circumstances. I think, for the member’s benefit, I could say this: a closer analogy to the kind of commission of inquiry we are engaged with in the case of the Canterbury earthquakes is the 2009 royal commission into the Victorian bushfires, in which the kinds of arrangements for engagement with the royal commission were the same there as are proposed here. But I certainly do not seek to diminish the extent of the tragedy and its effects on those poor families.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: If the victims’ families do not require independent legal representation because royal commissions of inquiry are “inquisitorial in nature” and “engaged in fact-finding”, as he said in a letter to the quake families, why then has he provided legal representation to Pike River victims’ families for their royal commission?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Because, as I have said in both answers already given, it depends on the particular circumstances. The better analogy here is not with Pike River; it is with the Victorian royal commission, in which counsel assisting the commission liaised with families in order to assist those families through that particular process.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given he said last year: “We recognise the importance of the families of the Pike River victims being represented and participating in the Royal Commission of Inquiry, and will move to see that happens.”, does that mean he does not recognise the importance of earthquake victims’ families being independently—not with counsel assisting the commission, but independently—represented in this royal commission inquiry?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I certainly recognise the need for those families to be heard by the royal commission. That is exactly why Justice Mark Cooper and the other commissioners have personally met with them, and why there is a liaison person, who, as I said, is doing very good work, and who is keeping in constant contact with them. Counsel assisting the commission will be representing them, and I believe that it is that combination of matters that will ensure these poor people do have the chance to make their submissions to the royal commission.
