Financial Review Debate — Office of the Ombudsmen

I would like to raise a very serious matter concerning the Office of the Ombudsmen: the failure of that office to ensure the effective scrutiny of the Government through the Official Information Act. That Act is policed by the Ombudsman. It is a very important Act for members of Opposition parties and for others in the community who want to hold the Government to account.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: And the news media.

Yes, and for the news media as well. Holding the Government to account is becoming more and more difficult, not only because Labour has expanded the public service by some 20,000 additional workers since being in power, which means that government is even bigger and more intrusive, but also because Ministers are becoming more obstructive, are misleading more often, and, in fact, are just becoming slippery. The Office of the Ombudsmen is failing in its duty to hold those Ministers to account to Opposition members who are asking for information.

More and more often, Ministers and their departments simply refuse to provide information under the Official Information Act—not just to members of Parliament but also, in particular, to the media. The challenges to those decisions are taking many, many months. The Ombudsman used to be our advocate in asking for such information. The Ombudsman used to work for the little guy—because we are actually working for ordinary New Zealanders so that they can find out what their Government is up to. But I understand that 60 percent of some of the Ombudsman’s responsibility is now taken up with complaints from prisoners, which is absolutely ridiculous. The Ombudsman is also becoming an apologist for the Government, protecting obstructive Ministers who want to keep matters of government—the real facts—secret from the public.

Through the Official Information Act we have exposed scandals. The hip-hop tour is one that springs to mind. It was funded by the Community Employment Group in the Department of Labour, with the Minister, Steve Maharey. It was a huge scandal—thousands of dollars wasted—and a huge embarrassment to the Government. Under the Official Information Act I have put in requests for information from the Community Employment Group. Not long ago I received a letter from the Minister, Steve Maharey, stating that my request would cost me $15,197.50. He is trying to charge me, a member of Parliament, $15,000 to get the information I have requested.

That information must include some pretty big secrets that the Minister is trying to hide, because there is no way an Opposition member or a member of the media can afford to spend $15,000 on getting such information. When we go to the Ombudsman to ask for help, what happens? The Office of the Ombudsmen ends up upholding the Minister’s complaints against us, upholding costs, and members of the Opposition cannot get the information they requested.

The Official Information Act states that Ministers can charge for the supply of information but that the charge must be reasonable. I see that Mr Maharey is sitting in the House. I ask Mr Maharey how he would have felt when he was a member of the Opposition if a Minister had said: “OK, I’ll give you the information, but it’s going to cost you $15,000.” I can tell the House that he would have been absolutely up in arms. Now here he is, colluding with his department to prevent information that is clearly scandalous getting out into the public arena.

The Office of the Ombudsmen needs to have a serious look at the way it deals with issues like this. It needs to reassess where its time is going, in particular, the growing amount of time spent on prisoners’ demands. It needs to be spending 60, 70, or 80 percent on New Zealanders who want to hold the Government to account. That is what the office was set up for. I suggest that the Ombudsman needs to reflect on that and needs to come down extremely heavily on Ministers who are trying to avoid giving out proper information to the public by charging exorbitant fees.

Report noted.

Ministry of Economic Development