Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General

I move, That a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the appropriations and information for the 2010/11 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Officers of Parliament are independent from the executive. It is therefore appropriate that their budget-setting process is different from that of the Government. The Officers of Parliament Committee considers Budget requests from the three Officers of Parliament. It makes recommendations to the House. The House then sends an Address to the Governor-General requesting that the estimates be included in the main Appropriation Bill for the coming financial year.

Some features of the estimates worth noting here include a capital injection of half a million dollars to enable the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General to manage increased pressure on its capital requirements, an increase of $320,000 in core funding for the Office of the Ombudsmen for the next 2 years to deal with a rising backlog of cases—this reflects the busy work of the Opposition in many ways, but the funding will be reviewed as part of the consideration of the 2012 Budget—a further increase of $230,000 for the Office of the Ombudsman for the next 3 years to carry out monitoring under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and a reduction of $150,000 of funding per year for the audit function of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. This occurs because the monitoring function that the commissioner performs in relation to the Electricity Commission is likely to be removed with the passage of the Electricity Industry Bill that is now before the House. These appropriations are the subject of the Address to the Governor-General. I look forward to the House supporting them, as they obviously support the various Officers of Parliament through this process.

I rise to speak on the draft budgets for Officers of Parliament. The Officers of Parliament Committee is a very important committee of Parliament, as the Leader of the House pointed out. All parties act as the executive on this committee, and undertake the scrutiny of some very important votes: Vote Audit, Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and Vote Ombudsmen. I do not think many people know about the Officers of Parliament Committee in terms of parliamentary function, but I have found it a very important committee for the enactment of those different votes.

As the Leader of the House said, the Officers of Parliament Committee looked at Vote Audit. The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General has asked for another $500,000, which would still be subject to approval. The increase in this vote was because the office is revenue-dependent. Its costs are fully funded back, and have been since 2007. It has incurred some increased additional costs because it audited long-term council community plans—a very important role, which it has finished.

Another reason the office asked for the extra $500,000 is that there is pressure on its capital requirements. It has an extra 90 staff because of the audit functions that we have put on this vote. Over 6 years, there has been quite an increase in work. It also flagged to us that it is looking for alternative premises, which is something that, in the future, we will examine in terms of this vote. The department is managing—well, the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is not really a department—on some quite outdated systems. There is an old document management system that has been going for 8 years, and a 10-year-old management system, which also needs to be upgraded. So we listened to all of that information, which was put to us very convincingly. We were aware of the very financially constrained times last year, and we are aware of some pressures going forward.

The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is a very small office with a small number of staff, and it is a vote of only $2.7 million. Staff assured us that they are going through the same line-by-line, value-for-money approach that we thought was very important. They found lots of efficiencies as they carry out the functions they mentioned. They have outsourced their library services. They have really felt the squeeze, but they have gone to an open-plan system in their offices, which was impressive.

The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has a very important role in terms of measuring the health of our environment and reporting back to Parliament. It also had to report on the new Environmental Protection Authority, which, I think, the Officers of Parliament Committee will monitor in the future. It has looked at a strategic approach to biofuel production. It has done a lot of work, and we commend it for its work. It has a small number of staff, but it manages to meet those requirements.

The last vote that we looked at was Vote Ombudsmen. The Office of the Ombudsmen is an interesting office that is under considerable pressure. It talked about 1,928 complaints that have not yet been assigned. That is a growing sign of pressure on the Office of the Ombudsmen. There has been a 22 percent increase in demand for its services, and the office feels it needs to be responding to this increase.

I think it was very interesting that Sir Guy Powles, who recommended setting up the Office of the Ombudsmen, said: “The Ombudsman is Parliament’s man, put there for the protection of the individual, and if you protect the individual you protect society.” The Office of the Ombudsmen takes that role very seriously. It was concerned about its unassigned cases, and it asked for one more investigating officer.

It was also very interesting for the committee to know that the Office of the Ombudsmen is now reporting on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was an additional compliance cost it had to meet. We took that into account in the draft budget that we put before the Minister of Finance in the House today. I am proud the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was signed by the previous Labour Government in 2008.

Members of the Officers of Parliament Committee worked in a consensual way, under your leadership, Mr Speaker, as the chair of the committee. It is an enjoyable committee. We take the role very seriously. I believe that all of us agree that the budget pressures on all these votes need to be taken seriously, and I believe we responded seriously to their requests.

I rise to address this motion, which the Green Party is, of course, prepared to support. Generally, we believe that these three agencies, the Audit Office, the Office of the Ombudsmen, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, all do excellent work. They have a special role to play as Offices of Parliament. They are independent of the executive branch of government, and they are, in fact, offices of this legislature, which is why we in the Officers of Parliament Committee get to determine their budget, as opposed to the Minister of Finance doing so. That is as it should be.

When we look at the three budgets—not that there is any inherent reason to compare them—it is noteworthy to see that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment receives a small budget. It is $2.6 million in the forthcoming year, compared with $8.6 million for the Office of the Ombudsmen, and, in fact, compared with $61.7 million for the Audit Office. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment not only has a small budget but has a small staff: only 15 full-time people. So one has to ask, with the greatest of respect for the individual competence of Dr Jan Wright and her colleagues, just how much can be undertaken to fulfil that office’s role, important though it is.

When I look at the four statutory functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, I find two in particular attend to our interests: the first and third functions. The first function is to determine whether the current environmental laws are working adequately, and the third one is to advise the Parliament and the Government on environmental issues. Well, of course, that third remit produces different effects. It is one thing to advise the Parliament, but it is another thing to advise the Government. The Parliament debates matters, and the Government decides on them. So the advice, which may be the same, that goes to both Parliament and the Government may end up having a different outcome. In fact, one could legitimately ask how much notice is taken—at least by the Government—of the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We could look at climate change to see an example of that.

In the annual report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment dated 30 June 2009, the parliamentary commissioner acknowledges that “climate change is the environmental challenge that dwarfs all others.” Yet the parliamentary commissioner made eight recommendations in her submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee in October last year. They were very important recommendations to the Government pertaining to the proposed legislation. I take this opportunity to read them out. The first is that the allocation of free carbon credits should be granted only if there is a genuine reason for it, and that the reasons should be stated publicly for each particular activity. The second is that New Zealand should not align itself with Australia’s proposed scheme—and that issue is of considerable pertinence to us today. The third is that a cap on the number of carbon credits freely allocated is vital in order to create the right incentives and reduce fiscal risk for the Government and policy uncertainty for business. The fourth is that the phase-out of free carbon credits is far too slow. The fifth is that the allocation to the agriculture sector should be reviewed. The sixth is that transparency should be increased, particularly regarding allocations. The seventh is that the allocation provided to protect competitiveness should be reassessed more regularly than 5-yearly. The eighth and final one is that the provisions that are meant to reduce the negative impact of the emissions trading scheme on the tree weed problem should be strengthened.

Those eight different recommendations were made to the Government in accordance with the statutory functions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Which of those eight were adopted by the Government? I stand to be corrected, but my understanding would be none. So one could, perhaps, conclude that there might be some merit in having a budgetary line item—not necessarily tucked into the budget for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, because one would need it to be independent of that office—to determine how much general advice from the parliamentary commissioner to the Government has, in fact, been adopted.

I will draw one more issue to the attention of this House. True to the principles of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, members will find in its annual report that the office does, in fact, produce its own carbon footprint for analysis. It emitted 15.8 tonnes of carbon emissions over the last year, which was a slight decrease on the amount in the year before that. That, I think, also posits a question for the attention of this House: should it be the case that Government departments—the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment not being a Government department—also produce their carbon footprint for scrutiny and analysis by the House or by the public? We remember that the previous Government had a scheme, which I think was called Govt³, in which the three lines of sustainability—environmental, social, and economic—were to be scrutinised, Government department by department. The present Government saw fit to abolish that scheme in March of last year. My question is, why? Would it not have been in order for Government departments to continue to provide that information? Certainly the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is setting out its own model in that area.

Finally, I note, in the context of the good work that the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does, its latest report to the OECD, which was only about a week or so ago. I noticed on page 39 of that report, entitled How clean is New Zealand? Measuring and reporting on the health of our environment, a recommendation that the Government should at least advance national environmental reporting legislation. The Green Party strongly supports that recommendation from the parliamentary commissioner. I personally shall be exploring, I hope in dialogue with the Government, ways in which the idea of sustainability indicators can be produced and integrated into Government legislation.

With those words, I endorse the motion and pay tribute to the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and to the other two independent bodies for the work that they do. Thank you.

I take the opportunity of this Government motion to commend the work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is doing. The Māori Party places enormous significance on our roles to protect natural values, to achieve sustainable development, and to keep our environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone and for future generations. We start, of course, from the perspectives of whānau, hapū, and iwi as tangata tiaki to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. This is the goal that all of us take very seriously, so we have been very impressed by the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in trying to set in place roles and responsibilities for regular reporting on the state of the environment to different public entities. The report she issued last week encouraged us to consider the value of a national environmental reporting Act. The Māori Party is interested in this idea as a mechanism to report in a systematic way on the state of the environment. In fact, it was a bit of a shock to learn from Dr Wright’s report that we are the only country in the OECD that does not have a formalised process for regular national reporting on the environment.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise an important issue. This is the draft Budget debate on these Offices of Parliament; it is not about the value of these votes. I have not heard anything about the Budget.

The member makes a very good point. I have not wished to intervene with members, because one could argue that statements of intent and that kind of thing do relate to Budgetary documentation, and, therefore, one could argue that the work programme of these offices is relevant to that extent.

I must tell the House that I have a growing concern that members are coming to this House with a typed-out speech and reading the speech to the House. This is a House of Representatives where members debate issues. The question we are debating at the moment is that a respectful Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General commending to His Excellency the appropriations and information for the 2010-11 financial year in respect of those votes. I expect to hear some debate around that motion—that is what this House is debating. I am concerned that too often we are hearing speeches prepared by party research units read out to the House that form no part of any recognisable debate whatsoever.

I do not want to be unfair to any member, so I say to the honourable member Rahui Katene that I am not being critical of her. I just want to alert the House to the fact that this is something I will be discussing further with leaders in the House. I am very concerned that we are seeing this place as no longer a place of debate but a place where, too often, prepared speeches are read to the House. This is a House of Representatives. The freedom of speech in this place was hard fought for over many years, and we should not throw it away lightly. I apologise, but the member should be mindful of the motion we are actually debating.

💬 RAHUI KATENE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I take your point. This report is money well spent by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We hope this House will be taking up the suggestions she has made in this report, because it will show that the money has been well spent if we listen to them.

We want to bring attention to the fact that the commissioner’s work programme has increased over the last little while. We note that on the basis of this increased demand, the report recommended that the commissioner’s annual appropriation be reduced by only $150,000 of the recommended $312,000 annual provision for the Electricity Commission audit function. Although it may appear to be a bit of a Clayton’s provision, it provides ongoing support to endorse the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We need to make it clear to the House that what this office is doing is very important and that we see the importance of what it is doing. We see that it is very important that we bring this into the House to look not only at hard economics but also at what those economics are doing to our environment. We have a longstanding interest in measuring indicators and the economy in a way that encourages everyone to take responsibility for the good health of the environment. For that reason, we hope this House takes seriously the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Thank you.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.