Graeme Edgeler: electoral law expert and barrister on the former Labour ministers declining to appear for the Covid inquiry

A constitutional lawyer says the Royal Commission of Inquiry has the power to summons ex-ministers to front for its Covid enquiry. 

It's called off its second week of hearings after Chris Hipkins, Dame Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, and Ayesha Verrall declined to appear. 

It says it shouldn't diminish the inquiry - as all have privately given evidence.

Lawyer Graeme Edgeler says the Commission just needs to consider if it'll miss out on key information without a summons.

"If the answer to that was yes, then they should exercise it. They seem to think at the moment that they don't need need to have the summons, but it's something they have in their back pocket."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Labor leader Chris Hopkins has spent the last twenty four
hours defending his decision not to turn up to the
public COVID inquiry. The Commission decided against summonsing him, just
into are doing, Grant Robertson and I shaveraal because it
would be legalistic and adversarial, which the terms of reference prohibit.
Graham Edgeler is a constitutional lawyer. High Graham, Hello, should
they have gone ahead and just summons these guys anyway.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
If they think they need it? And so I think
that's you know, it's the they have the power to
do all of these things. But the question is really
for the Royal Commission is are we missing out on
information that we wouldn't otherwise get information that we might
need to be able to make our conclusions and make
our recommendations. And if the answer to that was yes,
then they should exercise it. They seem to think at

(00:45):
the moment that they don't need to have the summons,
but it's something they have in their back pocket, you know,
if you know they're still sort of getting information from them.
If they start getting sort of stonewalled about the type
of information that that they want and can't get it,
then it's power they have and should seriously consider using
if they need it to get the information they need
to have to make their recommendation.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
They seem to be, I mean not they seem to be.
They are worried about the fact that it would appear adversarial,
but as the summons itself adversarial, if the interview that
it then elicits is not adversarial.

Speaker 2 (01:17):
It's a little you know, sort of formally sort of
giving a document to someone saying if you don't turn up,
you're committing a crime. You know, I could see why
people have that sort of thing. I mean, I would
have hoped that the ministers or former ministers would have
agreed to go, you know. I sort of their reasons
for it don't seem particularly strong for me. You know.
It's something that I think we should expect ministers or

(01:39):
former ministers to do when these sorts of things happen.
We had it about a year ago with Minister Karen
Sure before the Whiteengua tribuneal which is also a Commission
of Inquiry, and they weren't getting answered and so they
did exercise their power to issue are summons and at
that point sort of the government ministers who are up
in arms about former ministers not doing this now up

(01:59):
in arms that any tribunal would ever ask a minister
to come along and answer anything.

Speaker 1 (02:03):
Yeah, I mean apart from them obviously playing politics. So
that that's a fair point that you're making. But isn't
that fascinating that the White Tungi Tribunal was prepared to
summons her over simply changing one tiny part of a
piece of legislation, and yet this Commission of Inquiry of
Equal Standing is not prepared to do it on something
that has touched every single one of our lives. Is
a thousand times bigger than what Karen Shaw did.

Speaker 2 (02:27):
I think part of the issue in that case is
the White Tannguy Tribunal was prepared to just accept written
responses and the minister then just didn't want to provide anything,
didn't want to answer written questions. It's oughtkay, okay, well
you're not going to do anything, then we need you
know something. In this particular case, I understand that at
least some of the former ministers have met with some
of the commissioners sort of they sort of informally in private,

(02:50):
and are also providing written answers to all the sorts
of questions that the Commission has, and so I think
that's probably the difference is that they are getting written answers,
which were what Karen Shawed didn't want to provide at
the time.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Hi, yeah, fair enough. Hey listen, I'm given that they
don't want to appear publicly. Should the transcripts of the
interviews and evidence that they have given be published?

Speaker 2 (03:10):
I think it sure. I don't think it needs to
be published now. I see no reason why it couldn't
be published when the commission makes its report. You know,
sometimes you know, we think maybe to the christ Church
terror attack Commission of Inquiry, you know, a lot of
sort of perhaps sensitive national security information that you wouldn't
want published this. You know, there might be a few

(03:30):
things you need to redact or something like that with
you know, protect privacy with people's names or whatever. But
I see no reason why that they couldn't release the
the evidence when when they get to the end, and
I think that would be appropriate.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
Graham, thanks for your time, mate. This is Graham Angelo,
constitutional lawyer.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
For more from Hither Duplessy Alan Drive listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio