KEY POINTS:
The century-old law empowering formal inquiries needs to be replaced with a slicker, clearer way for governments to grapple with major issues, says a report released yesterday.
The Law Commission has recommended the introduction of a more streamlined system allowing for two types of inquiry - public inquiries (replacing commissions or royal commissions of inquiry) and government inquiries (replacing ministerial inquiries).
"The existing law has a heavy and formal feel to it that is out of step with the way modern public administration is conducted," says the report.
Its limitations and the way it encourages costly, adversarial practices means governments have been reluctant to set up commissions or royal commissions, instead using ministerial inquiries. However, they are not governed by any legislation, do not have powers to compel anyone to give evidence, and are not covered by legal immunity.
Since 1990, there have been only five commissions or royal commissions. During that time there have been at least 28 ministerial inquiries, including 19 under the Clark Administration.
Law Commission president Sir Geoffrey Palmer said New Zealand had a culture of formal inquiries, with a history dating back to 1864 when Australian parliamentarians were appointed to recommend where on the shores of the Cook Strait the capital should be.
"What we want to do is to reform the law so that inquiries are conducted in a simpler way than they can be under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, that the procedures are more flexible, and that they are cheaper," he said.
"We say that it would be a good idea to try and have two sorts of inquiry so that big public inquiries with meaty issues and high levels of concern should be done by a public inquiry."
These would cover major policy areas such as the current inquiry into Auckland governance, or disasters such as the Erebus inquiry.
The government inquiry would be a smaller, quicker inquiry.
"You may want to know whether a minister's behaviour has been appropriate for example. If that's the case you need a fairly authoritative answer from an independent inquirer and you need to do it quickly."
Both inquiries would enjoy the same powers. The difference would lie in how they were appointed and who they reported to.
Legal aid is not currently available to parties appearing before a commission, but the report proposes that an inquiry should be able to recommend that a person facing undue hardship should have their costs covered by the government.
The recommendations were tabled in Parliament yesterday.
Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker welcomed the report, saying it was "comprehensive.
He said the government would give careful consideration to the Law Commission's recommendations and the draft bill.
QUESTION TIME
The report calls for two types of inquiry:
Public inquiries:
* Appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.
* Reports to the Governor-General and their reports be tabled in Parliament.
Government inquiries:
* Appointed by a Government minister.
* Reports to the minister responsible.
