Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill

Tēnā nō tātou katoa. I move, That the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that this bill go to the Government Administration Committee to enjoy consideration. This is a particularly important piece of the machinery of our constitution and our Government, which has been starved as a consequence of a very parsimonious approach taken by the current Government to adequately resourcing the Office of the Ombudsmen. The Office of the Ombudsmen has a bark that can have an effect not unlike a set of teeth marks on recalcitrant bureaucrats. At all times we need to ensure that this office is suitably and adequately resourced.

Unlike other members of the House, the officers of that office are not prone to florid, extravagant language. It falls to me to be a moderate and sober representative for them and their concerns, which were reflected in the select committee report that considered the report of that office where no one on that side of the House stepped up to alleviate the concerns, or certainly adequately alleviate the concerns, of such figures as David McGee QC and Dame Beverley Wakem, the two senior office holders in that institution at the moment. They said that the workload is such that they are struggling to maintain the quality of work and the quantity of output that has defined their work to date.

It is evident that their staff are experiencing an enormous amount of work and their staff are stretched. We, as members of Parliament, ought at all times to ensure that they are suitably resourced, because when their work is carried out on a consistent basis it has the effect of ensuring that the bureaucracy operates to a high standard of quality. I have only to think, in the spirit of openness, about the Zaoui debacle where Mel Smith, the Ombudsman of that time, was able to delve into the innards of the immigration department, and indeed found that an individual—I recall the name being Ian Smith—had not only failed to provide the necessary information but also failed in his duties. It ended up costing the reputation of that department and, indeed, unnecessary amounts of money. This is an example of why the office ought to be adequately funded.

Let me talk about what this bill, pithy in size, but deep, deep, deep in reach, seeks to do. What this bill seeks to do is to establish a regime where recalcitrant, uninterested, indifferent bureaucrats have their department face a financial cost should they not be efficient and respond with alacrity to the constitutional concerns of the Office of the Ombudsmen.

I need to say it may be said that by enabling the Office of the Ombudsmen to pass on a charge as a consequence of the sluggish behaviour of these bureaucrats, it could give rise to a difficulty with a conflict of interest perception. That is not—that is not—the case in terms of the thinking behind this bill and neither is it the case in the words used in this bill. It is an opportunity for us to incentivise the Government departments so that they realise that where their actions do not measure up to the expectations of the Office of the Ombudsmen, then they do not get a free pass. But it is measuring the sense of crisis—and I use that word because I am borrowing the language that was in the actual report that quoted Dame Beverley as describing the paucity of resources reaching a crisis level.

It may suit that side of the House to diminish the status of these officers of the House. Indeed, they are about to do it to the environmental ombudsman. But on this side we stand to ensure that such steps cannot be taken in a furtive way. They will be publicised at all relevant points in this constitutional journey.

Why are we required to bring this bill, when there is an opportunity on that side of the House to simply increase the appropriation? It might be said National is not doing that because of the general scarcity of resources. But I go back to the central principle, which Dame Beverley herself has pointed out. When her office is adequately resourced, that actually enables it to resolve a whole host of difficulties behind the scenes and ensure that Government departments do not act in a fashion that worsens either the reputation of the bureaucracy or further frustrates the legitimate interests and concerns of New Zealanders when they seek out information.

All electors require a watchdog. This institution is a constitutionally mandated watchdog, and the provenance of it goes back a little bit before my time. There could be certain members of the House who remember Sir Guy Powles back in the 1960s—slightly before my time—but that gives an indication of how deeply embedded this institution is in our machinery of government. And for what I would say is the miserly sum of $700,000, which is the difference between the $300,000 gesture—which came from the frugal, parsimonious, flinty Mr English, who seems to be diminishing the status and the role of this organisation all for $700,000—and the additional million dollars the office needs to get rid of the backlog. We should be doing that. Why? Because it is not reasonable for citizens to wait incessantly because this institution, the Office of the Ombudsmen, lacks the resources.

We have been told that nigh on 80 percent of the complaints actually come from individuals. There has been a host of colourful complaints. Obviously, I think here not only of the Zaoui case but of the work, for example, that happened in the complaint that was made in relation to the photos that the police had concerning the French rugby player who got into a spot of bother. The Office of the Ombudsmen was available to assist the media. Although that does not strike at the heart of the Government, it enables the media—which from time to time can be rather irritating, but they have a role to play as well; the fourth estate—to ensure that they get quality information.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Be nice to them.

Should I be nice to the media? Ninety-five percent, but unfortunately words are inversely related to reality when you deal with the fourth estate. That is another matter, and I wish them well in trying to ascertain what is really happening with my Māori relations and their water hui and the Government.

But to come back, in terms of the Ombudsmen, I think it is important to bear in mind that the office has jurisdiction over local government. It has jurisdiction over local government, so its workload has grown, and it has probably grown on the back of the global financial crisis, as people feel that as the current Government is rationing resources, their concerns are not being adequately aired, they are not being adequately considered, or, indeed, new grievances are growing. So why not ensure that the watchdog, which is a force for good in relation to the electors, is adequately funded?

We realise that the refined voices of Dame Beverley and Dave McGee will not take on an acidic tone like those members of the House—they will remain refined. But I have only to quote the words of Dame Beverley where she said that they are in crisis. So it falls to us as parliamentarians to highlight that sense of crisis, to warn both ourselves and electors that if it is left to wend its way unattended, mischief could be afoot.

Thirdly, we as parliamentarians ought to ensure that the institutions that report to Parliament are held in the highest public esteem. They are not asking for a great deal; they are asking to be treated respectfully. I have got no doubt that the next report they send in our direction will repeat the concerns that they suffer as a consequence of the miserly level of the paucity of resources that they currently have access to. So this is a legitimate piece of legislation—proposed legislation. I look forward to it being—perhaps forlornly—supported by all sentient members of the House and I would like to put on record that, after the vote, they may prove to be a very diminished number. Thank you very much.

Just to make sure that someone does not get away with any false arguments, I seek leave to table a letter from the Auckland Council charging an exorbitant fee for official information, as an example of the injustice of the present legislation, which is seeking to be remedied. This letter is dated 13 April 2012 and happens to be addressed to me—seeking information off them.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you seeking to table that?

Yes, I am.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I rise to speak on the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill put forward by the Hon Shane Jones. This bill would enable the Ombudsmen to recover the cost of their investigations from the agencies being investigated. This is the plan of the bill, but, frankly, it would not be the only outcome and it would not, I do not think, be as effective as is suggested. This bill lacks the thumbprint of work done by that member normally.

When I think back to the times I have worked with the Hon Shane Jones, I think of the Resource Management Act, and the emissions trading scheme—all sort of major legislation that has involved him over the last few years. Clearly he is a powerhouse within the ranks of Labour, a towering intellect, and a powerful debater, yet this is what we get. To put it flatly, this is a premature bill that will satisfy neither the needs of the Office of the Ombudsmen nor the needs of the taxpayers of New Zealand. It is a bill that seems to have been put together by someone simply wanting to fill the members’ bill bucket. [Interruption] It is premature.

The Government acknowledges and appreciates the importance of the oversight the Ombudsmen provide and their contribution to a just and fair society. However, the Government also acknowledges something the member across the Chamber has yet to and that has been the unintended fiscal consequences that could arrive without proper investigation of shifting the costs from Government agencies to the Ombudsmen’s budget. It is a peculiar suggestion and I really wonder how involved Shane has been with putting this bill together, because suddenly you are allowing people, you could say, to write their own cheques.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The promoter of this bill is the Hon Shane Jones. He is not “Shane”. He is the Hon Shane Jones and even if you have got new backbenchers over there we must not let our standards drop in this House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I shall rule on that. I think the member who was speaking is aware of that and I think it was perhaps a blemish in his utterances. I just ask him to be cognisant of the fact that he should use the appropriate nomenclature.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I acknowledge a little bit of a lapse there in the normal—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Egregious!

An egregious lapse? I do not think it was an egregious lapse, and I am grateful to the Rt Hon Winston Peters for just reminding me of that fact.

However, let us go back to the bill. Robert K Merton, then of Harvard University, stated this in his article “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action”. It was published in the American Sociological Review. He quotes: “The most obvious limitation to a correct anticipation of consequences of action is provided by the existing state of knowledge.”

In this bill you are looking at half an equation. What you are saying is: “Gosh! They’re a bit short of money. Let’s give them the capacity to charge more.” I wonder what sort of a political tool that could be in the hands of an imaginative Opposition member. It could be very, very useful. There is no conflict of interest, we are assured. Where does this assurance come from? It is from the Hon Shane Jones, who is putting the bill into Parliament. He has given us his verbal assurance that there is no conflict of interest. Do we need to take it further? I think not, because he is an honourable man. Do you know, I am honestly left wondering how much he really understands the bill. It is quite common, when we stand to speak on a bill, for members on the other side to say: “Do you understand what you’re talking about?”; “Do you really know this bill?”. Well, we can reverse the charge in this case, and even though the member used his wonderful vocabulary, his entertaining tongue, his—

💬 David Bennett: Oh, that’s immaterial.

Oh, no, no, he does, and let us be fair about this. He blends the benefits of Welsh culture, Māori culture, and Yugoslav determination. That was his own description of himself, as he gloried in the genetic mix. Although we have all done the same, and we did enjoy listening to him, we will not, on this side of the House, be supporting the passage of this bill. Thank you.

I would like to seek leave to table a document from the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom. It outlines a model of cost recovery that is similar to the one this bill proposes. It is intended primarily as a general guide for businesses—

I think we have got the picture. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on this Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. It is also a pleasure to follow Mr Auchinvole, as it always is. He is a member whom I could be charitable about and say that he usually has good judgment, but in this case he has misjudged the importance of this bill and the impact that it will have. He has misjudged it. He has talked about the other legislation that the Hon Shane Jones has shepherded through this House and the enormity of it. He has said that this piece of legislation might be rats and mice—rats and mice—in comparison with that legislation. But that shows a complete lack of judgment from Mr Auchinvole about the enormity and the importance of this bill.

The Office of the Ombudsmen does have a very important constitutional function to make sure that all our Government agencies are acting as to the laws that are passed in this House, and their own internal standards and processes. So to ensure that the Office of the Ombudsmen is correctly resourced is a very important constitutional function of this Government. To make sure that it is funded properly is also a very important function of this Parliament and of the Government.

The Hon Shane Jones, the sponsor of this bill, said that the 2011 financial review of the Office of the Ombudsmen said that the office was “in crisis”—in crisis—due to its high caseload and its inability to meet its demands. So this bill has travelled to this stage, as a member’s bill, in order to try to rectify the issue that was highlighted in that 2011 financial review, where it said the office was in crisis, and to make sure that the office is properly resourced so it can carry out its very important constitutional functions.

Those Government departments, those bureaucrats that the Hon Shane Jones was alluding to earlier on in his speech, have to be investigated properly when members of the public, or maybe the media—the fourth estate—feel that they have not had due process followed. I know that as a former member of the fourth estate, when you got an Official Information Act request declined and you did not feel that it had been processed in a fair manner, then it was off to the Office of the Ombudsmen to try to make sure that that information—which you thought you were rightfully trying to get your hands on—was investigated as to whether the agency was acting in its correct capacity, according to the legislation and its own internal processes. And I will be honest: some of the Official Information Act requests, speaking as a former journalist, asking for responses from a Minister’s office were requests of this party. But still, it is a very important constitutional role that the Office of the Ombudsmen has to make sure that those Government agencies and Ministers’ offices have followed the proper procedure as is prescribed in law, and also in their own internal processes.

Just last week I had a constituent contact me who had come to the end of their tether with a Government agency. They had spent a couple of years dealing with this agency. They had felt they had come to the end of the process that they could with that agency, which I will not name. The advice that I gave to that constituent was that the Office of the Ombudsmen was the only fair and reasonable place left for them to go. But I did caution them that if they did decide to go down that road, it could be some considerable time before they got a response. I say that out of experience. On this side of the House we know that we have put forward requests under the Official Information Act, and there have been attempts to—I think I will use a word that John Banks has used—gerrymander the process in order to delay the release of that information, or to not release that information at all.

I think we need to make sure that the Office of the Ombudsmen is resourced properly. That is what this bill tries to do in order for them to recover some costs from some of these agencies, so that very important constitutional role of the Office of the Ombudsmen can be carried out in order for the average Joe Citizen, for members of Parliament, for agencies dealing with Government agencies, and, of course, for the fourth estate to try to make sure that those legislative roles are adhered to.

Given the shortness of this bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, I am going to give a speech of appropriate length—a very short one indeed. I know that the Hon Shane Jones has put a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of research into this vast piece of legislation. A colleague, Mr Auchinvole, has outlined the National Party’s reasons for why we will be voting against this bill. We think it is premature, and we think it will have unintended fiscal consequences.

But I do want to pick up on one point that the member was talking about.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How about doing a bit of work over there?

I heard about the work that was being undertaken at the Green Parrot at 3 a.m. last night. I heard about it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not having that young pup get up and make an allegation like that.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member responded to an interjection that may or may not have been appropriate. I did not see that it was creating disorder in the House. I ask the member to continue.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not asking you to see whether you can agree with me; I am asking you to listen to my complaint. He made an allegation that is totally false and baseless. I have got thousands of—well, not thousands; I have got at least seven or eight—hotel witnesses who can back up what I am saying, where I stayed, and where I am accommodated, I might add. That allegation he made about somebody being out at 3 a.m. is totally false, and he should apologise.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He did not name any individual, at all; he just made a broad statement.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, go and look at the Hansard. He pointed over here and mentioned “that member”. That is an indication and a sign that would be adequate in a court of law. I suggest that it would be adequate for you to now find that he is responsible for bringing the House into disrepute and for being unruly.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am overruling the point of order. Jami-Lee Ross—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on this, Mr Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, you cannot make an allegation like that, refer to a member and point to him in a way that in a court of law would be regarded as being satisfactory for identification, make an allegation that someone was out at 3 a.m. when he was demonstrably not, and then think I am going to take that. I am entitled to have that man apologise, and I am asking that you rule properly and fairly in this case, as I would back up any other member who, being wrongly indicated or described in that way, is entitled to have his record clear.

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: My recollection was that the member who is the subject of this point of order said that he had heard something. That can be uncontested. He either did or he did not, and he made the assertion only that he had heard some news, not that he was an eyewitness.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I respond to that. With respect, if you make an allegation that you heard something, that is you repeating it. If it was a crime, then you are equally as guilty of spreading or introducing the defamation or the slander. As a former policeman, that member should know that. You cannot say “I was misinformed that somebody is a paedophile.”, for example. You cannot get away with that. He knows that. So I do not think that that statement, by way of explanation, was in any way meritorious at all.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have heard enough, thank you. I was listening very carefully to the member, and I have a very clear recollection that he said “I heard about the work being done at the Green Parrot.” That is all he said. I am not upholding the point of order.

I have been informed by my whips that I should now hurry up, so I shall just make the final point I was going to make: that I reject the assertions that this Government has been underfunding the Office of the Ombudsmen. In fact, we have put an increased $1.3 million into its budget—an increase of 16 percent. When we have zero budgets being looked at across the board, that is quite a significant increase. I think that is admirable and should be respected by the Opposition.

I would like to table a document called Paying for the Executioner’s Bullet. This document is not readily available in the public domain—

Well, what is the source?

It has been provided by a formidable legal firm going by the name of Simpson Grierson, which is a firm of great distinction—

I think members are aware. [Interruption] Order!

If I could briefly elaborate—

No, the member does not need to. I will put the leave.

I seek the leave of the House to table it.

Yes, I will put the leave. Leave is sought for the tabling of that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. Unlike many of the speakers so far in this debate, with the exception of Mr Auchinvole, I was part of the Government Administration Committee that conducted the financial review into the Office of the Ombudsmen that prompted the need for this legislation. I am pleased to say that there can be no doubt that that office is in crisis and that intervention is required. I thought it would be helpful, first of all, to reflect upon the importance of the Office of the Ombudsmen in the vital—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect I just saw something that is thoroughly untoward in a democracy, particularly on a very important matter, and that is the whip of a party going to tell other members not to take their call. That is serious.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That has got nothing to do with the order of the House.

I was reflecting on the vital role of the Ombudsmen and the democratic and constitutional purpose that they play. The Ombudsmen provide an independent, impartial check on the quality, fairness, and integrity of the administration and decision making in the wider State sector. That includes investigating complaints about the administrative conduct of central and local government agencies, and complaints about the decisions of Ministers of the Crown; providing information and guidance to employees wishing to report serious wrongdoing in their workplace, including whistleblowing; and examining and monitoring the treatment of persons detained in prisons, premises approved and agreed under the Immigration Act, health and disability places of detention, and youth justice residences. We often think of the Ombudsmen in relation only to the Official Information Act and complaints placed about that, but, in fact, they have a far wider role that also includes protecting and monitoring the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. All of those functions are very critical to both our constitution and our democracy, and to the public’s right to honesty, integrity, and transparency in those processes. So it is a very important role indeed, and it is very important that it is an office that is adequately resourced.

What we heard at the select committee during the financial review that has prompted this legislation is that the office is in crisis. For example, the office’s budget is established for a workload of 800 to 1,000 cases at any given time, but it now routinely deals with between 1,600 to 1,800 cases at any one time with no corresponding increase in funding. At the time of the review the office had 1,854 live cases, and of those over 300 were unassigned to an investigator. They were sitting unassigned because all the investigators were at their maximum tolerable workload—“tolerable” being a very important word there. These are people who are under a great deal of stress in this office. That meant that the office was consistently failing to meet deadlines and it was predicted that it would continue to do so because of the lack of resources. The effect on staff well-being in the office, we heard at the committee, was very serious indeed. Because it was currently understaffed by four investigators, and there had been no movement in staff salaries since 2007, it had a very high staff turnover, and it also had issues of staff sickness and stress leave because of high rates of serious illness and the stresses placed on staff working under the conditions that we have described, with the growing complexity and volume of cases and the lack of funding to deal with them. So it is not a pretty picture to be a staff member in the Office of the Ombudsmen at the moment. This bill from the Hon Shane Jones helps, I think, to partially resolve these issues by allowing the Ombudsmen the ability to recover costs, as well as promoting greater compliance from the Government departments and agencies being investigated.

If I may at this point give a personal example, I have a complaint with the Ombudsman that has now been sitting undealt with for almost a year. I do not hold any animus to the Office of the Ombudsmen for that state of affairs, but it is an important case where the police, a Government agency, cited a legal opinion in the media to say that they had decided to stop having sniffer dogs doing drug tests in schools because they had had a legal opinion telling them that they should no longer do that. We requested that legal opinion under the Official Information Act. It was not forthcoming, so we made a complaint to the Ombudsman. It transpired that no such legal opinion actually existed, yet the agency—the police—had gone on record publicly claiming that this opinion was the reason for no longer doing something. In fact, it did not exist. The Ombudsmen should be able to give a remedy in this case, and because they are under-resourced they are not able to do so. That is one example of why we need this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

I will take a short call, first of all to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones, a fellow Northlander and someone I have a great deal of respect for. I do, however, feel that it might have been something of a member’s bill hospital pass for the Hon Shane Jones, but I will not dwell on that.

I would like to acknowledge the important role of the Office of the Ombudsmen. One of the stated purposes in this bill is greater compliance with legislative requirements, which is, of course, a very noble and very worthy goal. The importance of the Official Information Act cannot be understated. As a former police officer I can certainly vouch for that. It is a very important part of the constitution of this country. However, there is a very real risk, in my view, of unintended consequences with this bill as it is set out that members could liken to crushing a walnut with a sledgehammer. Although the speech made by the Hon Shane Jones is one that will, I am sure, be going straight to the pool room, this member cannot support this bill beyond this reading. Thank you.

I seek leave to table, in rebuttal of course, a complaint by a Christchurch citizen in respect of the Office of the Ombudsmen. He says that the whole office is currently underfunded, backing up this bill’s contention.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that paper. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I would like to begin by congratulating Shane Jones on bringing this bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, to the House, because it is a common-sense bill. People out there in the community know common sense when they see it. Obviously, that does not include members on the other side of the House, but it does include the vast majority of New Zealanders. They will see it as a common-sense bill because it has three major advantages. First of all, it adds a new income stream to the Office of the Ombudsmen to help meet demand, and we all know that that demand is not being met currently. Why would anyone wish to stop that? You would have to have no common sense at all. Some of those members over there, of course, fall into that category. The bill will suppress demand, when Government agencies realise that they need to avoid the Ombudsman, because, with this legislation, there would be associated costs. So it will help to suppress demand, and that is something that common sense also dictates. Thirdly, it will mean that agencies are more willing to satisfy applicants for official information without having to go to the Ombudsman, and that is the way it should be too. That is a third common-sense reason that the members on the other side of the House will not be able to grasp, but the people out there in the community will.

Like many other members here I have some personal experience in dealing with Government agencies and city councils and trying to get basic information out of them. The fact that there is legislation that says they must actually do this in practice is not enough. I would like to give you this example. After my 15 years with the city council, where I did a lot of work to assist the development of recycling, I, with some others, set up a company that would do commercial and industrial recycling—something that had never been done properly in New Zealand before. In order to do that I needed the cooperation of the Christchurch City Council. I particularly needed some information from it. The council’s obstruction was absolutely disgraceful. You would have thought that a city council would fall over backwards to help people who were trying to promote commercial and industrial recycling in this country, but, no, the council’s imperatives were that it wanted to protect its own operations, so it would not give that information. Replies to requests that were designed to avoid giving important parts of the information were what I got. There were spurious reasons for not supplying the information. There was a legalistic approach by that particular agency to defer further applications, using legal gobbledegook that meant nothing but created delay. There was obvious obfuscation. There was a need for repeated applications to get basic information that should have been volunteered in the first place. The release of self-serving versions of information with the use of large sections of blanking out of documents was also employed by that city council, and is commonly employed by other agencies and councils as well.

In addition to that there were, and are, often deliberate delays beyond statutory limits, because councils and agencies know they can get away with it, and they should not. Mostly, the expectation that failing to assist people with valid applications for information will result only in an appeal to the Ombudsman, with no cost or other serious ramifications, is what we see on a daily basis with applications for official information in this country. This bill will help to change that. It will provide guidelines regarding the amount of the costs and guidelines about the circumstances—so there you have the safeguards.

The bill does extend to local government, and so it should. When you look at the behaviour of the Christchurch City Council, which I am now deeply ashamed of, you will see that this bill is absolutely necessary to create some balance in the situation. Councils and agencies can charge for information. Here we get something back in the other direction—some balance in the situation—where they will be charged if they do not do what they should have done in the first place.

So for all those reasons—for all those reasons—this bill deserves the support of this House, and the House should do so with enthusiasm. I am deeply disappointed that the National members obviously do not care about the seriousness of this problem. Their lack of common sense—

Order! The time has expired.

I seek the leave of the House to table a document.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I need a bit more information. The source?

The document is historical. It is a copy of the investigation undertaken by Mel Smith into the egregious behaviour of the Immigration Service.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. Leave is granted.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

It is always a pleasure to hear the almost poetic assemblage of words gathered together by the Hon Shane Jones when defending or promoting his various bills—of course, today, this one, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill.

But what always concerns me is the unrequited reflex action demonstrated by both the Labour Party and the Greens, but perhaps not the New Zealand First Party, to spend, spend, spend without a good and rational reason to do so.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order. The use of the word “unrequited” suggests a love-in with me and the Greens. That is wrong.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is a debating point. It is not a point of order.

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I noticed once again the Hon Shane Jones had mentioned three or four words, and as we know, they hang on to those words. His microphone was not on, once again, and this is happening too often—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Of course his microphone is not on. The call is over here. Paul Hutchison continues.

One of the things I did notice was his estimation of the costs of this bill being about $700,000, but I do know that there has been no detailed work into how this bill would actually—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, my colleague raised a point of order, and the point of order was that when some other colleague was seeking to make a point of order, at no time was the sound system turned on. To get up and gruffly say that of course it was not on, and the thing was over there, is utter bunkum. The point of order required it to go there because he had a legitimate point of order to make. Could we have some—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I hear the point of order now. I thought he was referring to an interjection. I am sorry about that.

The great concern is the fact that the Law Commission has indeed done some work on this. The Government’s response is yes, to wait, and when this afternoon I asked my PA to ring Shane Jones’ PA to ask for information and detail on this bill, she said there was none—she said there was none. We will be voting against this bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call on a bill from the Hon Shane Jones. The Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill is about an organisation that probably is one of the most respected organisations in the State system in New Zealand, so I want to acknowledge the work of the Ombudsmen, all of them, and their staff. I have been involved with them, I have seen them operate from the many different positions I have held, and I certainly want to acknowledge their diligence and the timeliness of the work they do. It is one of the most trusted organisations and certainly one whose assistance is often called for when a citizen is at the end of their tether, whoever that citizen may be. So I want to acknowledge that.

The second point I want to make is that, really, there is a wonderful elegance in the primary proposal in this bill. It actually will force a discipline amongst Government departments, particularly those against whom complaints are made regularly.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: And councils.

Indeed—I agree with the member. I must admit that I said to Mr Jones that I had never thought of this, but it does actually require all Government departments, if this bill passes, to not only internalise their discipline about timely response but also not subject themselves to complaints that can be upheld. There are many, many examples of that. Because there is the ability in Government departments, with all of the might of these huge departments and all of the resources they produce, to prevaricate, to take their time, and to really disable citizens from accessing their primary right to information, citizens need redress from what is the ultimate public servant, which is the Ombudsman. That is what the Ombudsman is—the ultimate public servant; a servant of the public. They have internalised that.

So, here, what this bill is saying is that if a complaint is made against you and charges are involved—and, of course, the bill also says the Office of the Ombudsmen will set guidelines as to how this is to operate—then be warned that the costs incurred will fall on you. They will fall on the department; never on you, Mr Speaker. I would never impugn you like that, at all. But that will breed a discipline.

I would have expected members opposite to understand this, because in all of the social development, social welfare, and benefit reform work that they have been doing, they have wanted to put incentives in. They are actually disincentives, but, you know, they have put in the ability to punish those who do not carry on. But why is it that members opposite have not applied their minds to the elegant simplicity of this bill—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Elegance.

Absolutely. It does do that. At the same time, I say to the member from the north, it actually also addresses a problem. Remember, the Office of the Ombudsmen is an Officer of Parliament. This is one of the officers of this place we are talking about. That office often has had to come to Parliament, cap in hand, asking for small amounts of money to get its work on its complaints done, and it has done that quite regularly. So it does address that problem. It addresses the issue of breeding discipline amongst Government departments. So it ticks off both those things.

Finally, what it does is it actually enables—and there is a list of complaints one could go through and examples of misuse, often by Ministers and Government departments, etc., where they prevaricate. A piece of information is asked for and it is not provided, and the spin machine actually works overtime. Of course, this Government uses that strategy a lot. Maybe that is why it is so touchy about this particular issue.

So it is a good bill. It is an elegant bill. It addresses a number of questions, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

If I can get the sound system on, I seek leave of the House to table a letter dated 12 September 2012 from a constituent who said, amongst other things, that the bill will stop abuse of the Ombudsman’s agency by less than upfront entities, and who generally supports the legislation—dated 12 September.

And that is a letter to you?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: A letter to my colleague.

A letter to your colleague?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

This bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, is one in the name of Shane Jones. I think that we all recognise the importance of the Ombudsmen and the work that is being done, and are very much aware and supportive of that work. But we are also aware of the costs that this would impose, and as a Government that looks at what is the best for New Zealand going forward in our economic conditions, we cannot support it at this time.

I would just like to say that this is probably one of the better bills that we are going to debate tonight, though. The next bill is a very good one, in Darien Fenton’s name, but following that, I think, the night will descend into a state of fictional challenges.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. His being new and naive is no excuse to go outside the Standing Orders, which says that when you are debating this legislation you cannot refer to a bill coming up two steps away from this. It is simply not allowed. You have got to come back to the debate on the subject before the House, which is the Hon Shane Jones’ magnificent bill.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is correct. I will uphold the point of order. The member should debate the bill currently before us.

Well, unfortunately, the bill cannot be supported, because it would mean an extra cost into the New Zealand system, which is not needed at this time. It is not really the kind of thing you would expect Shane Jones to promote, being somebody who is known in the Labour Party as a good advocate for financial management. So it is a bit disappointing that it comes in his name, but we do look forward to future bills tonight.

I seek leave to table a letter. It is from a constituent in support of the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. It is addressed to me, and it is dated 19 September 2012.

Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I understand that 5 illustrious minutes remain available to ensure that all the concerns associated with this bill, the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill, will be amplified. You may recall that I said that the gauge of sentience will be informed by the quality and the quantity of the votes. I have a fear that sentience ebbs as it goes to that side of the House, based on some of the sort of indiscriminate rhetoric thrown around in the House this evening.

I just want to remind the House that one no less illustrious than David McGee, who I understand is standing down from the role, is the current senior steward, along with Dame Beverley Wakem, of this Office of the Ombudsmen, and, let me say, constitutional institution.

It might be said that the funding of such an institution is not just a matter for the Labour members. It is a matter for members of the House. But the reality, as we have seen in the course of this debate, is that the majority of the members of the House, certainly those occupying that side, are obviously screwing the scrum. They are not interested in dealing with these genuine concerns about the adequacy of the resource base. They might think that this is a way of better conserving resources, but you cannot run the institutions that report to Parliament as some sorts of narrow, commercial, partly privatised entities. They are organs of democracy, and their costs cannot be measured purely in a day-to-day, year-to-year monetary form. Their costs should be associated with the value that the institution generates by improving people’s confidence in the behaviour of the executive.

So I want to remind that side of the House—just to show I am willing to talk about mistakes that happened in an earlier administration—that a former Ombudsman, Mr Belgrave, looked into what was perhaps one of the nastiest incidents that I watched befall a family as a consequence of lapses of professionalism and diligence from the bureaucracy. I am thinking here of the young 17-year-old Liam Ashley, who suffered the worst possible fate. It took the Ombudsmen to intrude and to investigate that. Those are the sorts of cases we should not shy away from funding. I then go on to an example that I might describe as an unwanted intrusion, where the Ombudsmen decided to have a go at quantifying, or getting our side of the House, when we held the benches of Treasury, to quantify the costs of that brilliant policy otherwise known as interest-free loans.

Both sides of the House from time to time will govern. Both sides of the House realise that the advisers they trust in the recesses of the bureaucracy do not always deliver goods that enable us to shine in the best fashion in the House. They should be held accountable for their actions, and that is why the Office of the Ombudsmen ought to be adequately funded. This is a device that enables them—not unlike Crown Law, not unlike the Audit Office, which I unfortunately know a bit about at the moment, but that is another matter. Both of those have the ability to recover costs, and what I am promoting in this bill is a modest contribution that will enable this august institution to cause the bureaucracy—where it is evident it has been sluggish, and it has not complied with the law, or it has been, as Mel Smith said, so circuitous that it appears to have broken the law.

That is why I am promoting this particular bill. It is not designed to create a problem with conflict of interest perceptions. It is an avenue to improve the financial robustness of the office, and I am very disappointed to hear from that side of the House that they have taken such a short-term, superficial, very shallow sort of an approach. But such shallowness, I accept, on this particular day has extended into this very well-thought-out and well-conceived piece of legislation, because it is shallowness that has characterised question time today. But I will continue, as is my duty as a parliamentarian, to promote this bill to the House.

I seek leave to table a report by one Adam Bennett, dated 15 February 2012, which states that the Ombudsman is under considerable pressure due to lack of funding.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.