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 alterations to the appropriations for the 2015/16 financial year in respect of Vote Audit and Vote Ombudsmen, and the appropriations and information for the 2016/17 financial year in respect of Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

These three offices are known as Offices of Parliament, and they serve as independent statutory authorities with specific roles to play. The Auditor-General, as everybody knows, is an office that superintends all public expenditure in New Zealand. It makes it very clear that its role is to independently assess the appropriateness of Government expenditure, measured against the statements given to this House about how that expenditure will be spent, effectively. That office is to ensure that the probity around any public spending is at the highest possible level.

Can I skip for a moment to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is a very important role in a country like this. Dr Jan Wright has proved the office to be very, very scientific in its approach to things, and the reports that come out of that office are certainly considered valuable by many, many New Zealanders. It provides a good interface between the scientific views that form policy and the sometimes more colloquial views that are expressed by communities about some of these matters. It is a valuable office and serves New Zealand well.

The Office of the Ombudsmen is an office where New Zealanders are able to go if they think they have not had a fair go, for one reason or another. This is an office that deals with all Official Information Act requests, and it has made a request to the Government for additional funding in the years ahead in order to make sure that it is able to meet the requirements under its Act. We can look forward to an increase in that funding in the years 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 in order not only to clear some backlog that exists there—some of it going back some very, very many years—but also to get on top of what is in front of it at the moment.

I would make this one comment, though, and I have thought very long and hard about making it because it is not always appropriate for this House to express views about independent commissioners, who basically are the people who lead the organisations we are speaking about today. But I did see an interview on television on 19 March with the Chief Ombudsman that I thought did have one or two matters raised and suggestions made by the Chief Ombudsman that should cause us all concern. The ombudsmen’s role is to make sure that people are treated fairly inside our democracy, not to determine the bounds of that democracy; nor is it the role of the ombudsmen to start determining what a relationship should be, for example, between a client and a legal representative, a lawyer, etc.; nor should they stray into areas that are most appropriately dealt with by the courts, particularly when it comes to the rules that allow us to live a free life in a country like this. I know that that is possibly a fine line, but that interview gave me quite some cause for concern.

However, I am pleased to commend this report to the House and welcome the debate that will now ensue before we vote later in the afternoon.

I think the last comments made by the Leader of the House have caused me to divert substantially from the comments that I was going to make. The first thing I want to do is to congratulate Mr Speaker on the good work that he does chairing the Officers of Parliament Committee and on the way that he builds unanimity around both the appropriation and the appointment process. To have Gerry Brownlee, the Leader of the House, criticise the fine legal brain of the new Chief Ombudsman, as he just did when he said he was concerned—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a procedure in the Standing Orders that would allow me to make a comment about that right now, but I will not. All I will say is that I made no such accusation.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It appears to be a matter for debate.

The Leader of the House might be being disorderly in attempting to break up the comments. He did say he was concerned about the comments of the Chief Ombudsman. That is what he said. When the leader of this Parliament, the Leader of the House in this Parliament, indicates that about the Chief Ombudsman, it is something that causes me concern because we are meant to be behind the Chief Ombudsman, who was very recently appointed. I think the member himself might have moved the nomination. Certainly, it was moved from his office. It is a fine appointment.

I want to say that the Chief Ombudsman has said that he will do two things. He will talk to members of Parliament, from all parties, about the shape of their requests and help them to make them more reasonable and easier to answer. He will insist on the standards of the law being met by Government departments and by Ministers, and he will report to this House on this. I think that is a damn fine thing. I see anxiety on the part of the Leader of the House for an ombudsman who is going to line up with the law, whom this Parliament is now going to give the resources to to get him to do his job properly: to attack the backlog, to do really innovative things, like using the phone to help sort out disputes—something that was not part of the practice in the past—and to use something really innovative, like using emails to sort out problems, which apparently the Leader of the House does not like. I think it is a good thing.

I think I can probably share a comment from the Chief Ombudsman because it was one that was said to a couple of members. He received a letter from New Zealand Post, after he had circulated around the fact that the Office of the Ombudsmen was now going to deal by email and not by letter, indicating that the Chief Ombudsman was part of the cause of the problem of the rundown in New Zealand Post. It is finally catching up—finally catching up—with the world of the 21st century. I think it is really good that the Chief Ombudsman is setting up a team to attack the backlog. I think it is really good that Ministers—I am not saying it is only Ministers from that side who have been slow in responding to the Chief Ombudsman. It is something that has happened in the past, but it has got much more common now. It was not good when our Ministers did it. It is disgraceful at the moment. To have someone getting the resources to sort it out is something that I think is very important.

Like the previous speaker, Trevor Mallard, I am extremely troubled by the comments of the Leader of the House. In this call, I was going to congratulate the Officers of Parliament Committee on finally responding to the request from the Office of the Ombudsmen for increased resources. I think the comprehensive review that the former Chief Ombudsman Dame Beverley Wakem did of twelve selected Government agencies, a survey she did of Ministers’ offices, and her look at how the Act was being implemented elsewhere showed that the major problem was not in the law itself, the Official Information Act, but in the way it was being implemented—its execution.

My memory of the interview with the new Chief Ombudsman was that he was simply pointing out that there were people in Government agencies who are qualified in the law, and, therefore, we are in a position to understand very clearly what the Official Information Act means and that that should assist in better execution of that Act. The Ombudsman is an independent Officer of Parliament. They are absolutely critical in providing openness and transparency in our democracy, in balancing the rights of the citizen against the much larger powers of the State, and in ensuring that Government Ministers and Government departments are accountable. I can only commend the work that the former Chief Ombudsman and the new Chief Ombudsman are doing in improving the way in which the Official Information Act is implemented.

We have seen, under this Government, a 40 percent increase in complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen, because, as the review that Dame Beverley did showed, there were major problems in the way that the Act was being implemented. Agencies were leaving it to the last minute, taking the full 20 days before they released information, and claiming extensions. We have seen that there are often, when we make requests, large areas of blacked-out text—redactions—but now we have seen agencies like the Reserve Bank and local councils charging requesters for information, knowing very well that $200 or $300, or sometimes even more, to provide information will create a significant barrier to getting that information and to calling the Government agency to account.

The Northland Environmental Protection Society, which is trying to hold the Ministry for Primary Industries to account for the way in which it is operating under the forests Act, for the major exports of ancient swamp kauri, which are potentially contrary to that Act, had to go to the High Court to get the High Court to adjudicate that the Ministry for Primary Industries should release emails and other information. The Official Information Act is critical to our democracy, so the work that the Office of the Ombudsmen is doing to improve compliance with the Act is important for a much more effective democracy.

Parliament is being asked to recommend, I think, a $2.3 million or a $2.6 million increase in the budget of the office. The Chief Ombudsman provided the select committee with a very detailed analysis of where the extra money was required. Funding is needed for some additional investigators to get on top of the backlog of, I think, about 600 requests that have been with the office for more than a year, and sometimes for up to 6 years. It is commendable that the office is seeking to deal with that backlog so it can go and do more of the types of reviews that Dame Beverly initiated—so that it can be proactive, rather than always being reactive.

If we do not have the work of the office being adequately resourced, then the sorts of practices that came to light in the review become systemic, and that undermines public trust in Government agencies and their administration of the law. It is in all of our interests for the Government to be accountable and to be transparent, because that encourages public confidence. I am deeply troubled by the Leader of the House’s comments, and I think the select committee should be congratulated on its work in making this recommendation for increased funding, which the Green Party is very happy to support.

New Zealand First is happy to support the motion in respect of the appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I want to begin by making just a couple of comments about the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General.

Firstly, the recommended increase of $200,000 seems to us to be well justified, having regard to the $174,000 deficit expected in the 2015-16 year and the need for a bit of a buffer in addition to that. We think that is fine. This is a very important office, with very important functions, especially for Parliament itself and for the general public, to make sure that those auditing functions that it has proceed and are well resourced. Secondly, I note that the Auditor-General has been supporting the secretariat of the South Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions—a very long and impressive name—for the past 3 years and that an additional appropriation of $230,000 is recommended for that. We think that is also a very important and very worthwhile function, and we are happy to support that additional appropriation as well.

But I particularly wanted to move on to the matter of the Office of the Ombudsman. I agree with many other speakers who have pointed out that for this extremely important public service, it is absolutely clear that in recent years there has been a lack of capacity driven by the lack of resources, leading to a backlog, which has led to public dissatisfaction with the Office of the Ombudsman. That has to stop. It must be properly resourced so that public confidence is restored, and so that the office can, in fact, carry out the functions it is established to do.

Like many MPs in the House, I have recently met with the new Chief Ombudsman, and I have been very impressed by his determination to get rid of that longstanding backlog within a very reasonable period of time. But, of course, that office can do that only if it has adequate resources for the job. I think that the new Chief Ombudsman has got a good strategy, a lot of energy, and a great deal of capability. As long as he gets the resources, he will do what he is setting out to do: to clear the backlog and to offer New Zealanders a very efficient ombudsman service, because people do have a great deal of respect for that office and use it frequently.

Unfortunately, one of the things that I would say is a problem in New Zealand at the current time is the issue about official information. Too many Government agencies make it too hard to get official information and too many local Government organisations do just the same. As Eugenie Sage said, some of them use charging techniques to try to discourage people from applying for information. We like the increased allocation for the Ombudsman; we think it is well justified and we will be supporting it.

Finally, I can make similar comments for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I agree with Gerry Brownlee that this office has performed extraordinarily well in recent times. It has shown its worth; it has shown to the public and to this Parliament that it can do a very good job in making us aware of the environmental issues that face the country. Of course in recent times the Environmental Reporting Act has given that office much greater responsibilities, and that requires resources and that requires this appropriation.

The parliamentary commissioner’s office has already done the first of its twice-yearly reports. It completed the first one on the air domain, and it is now working on a second synthesis report. It is now possible for that office to tell us what all of that is going to cost and what the increased appropriation needs to be. It is $250,000, and, frankly, I am surprised that it is that small. I am surprised that the office can actually achieve all of those functions and do that additional work for such a modest sum.

So New Zealand First is very happy indeed to support that additional appropriation, and, indeed, all of the additional appropriations that are set out in this motion—we will be voting for it.

I just want to congratulate the speaker on, as my colleague Trevor Mallard said earlier, leading a unified select committee discussion around the decisions that need to be made by the Officers of Parliament Committee. It is my first term on that select committee and, as a newer member, it has been really interesting learning with regard to these really important functions. It has been unanimous within the select committee, some good discussions have been had, and I think that we have made some really good decisions.

I think one of the best decisions made, actually, was the appointment of the current Chief Ombudsman. So I have to say that it was disappointing to hear Gerry Brownlee criticising the Chief Ombudsman earlier and questioning whether or not he should be making comments publicly about the legalities involved in his role, the legal requirements of Government departments, and how he is looking to hold them to account. Because, actually, when we appoint a Chief Ombudsman who was formerly a top judge, I think all of us would expect that he is going to be dead-set on upholding the law. That is a good thing for this House, and that is a good thing for this country.

The Chief Ombudsman has been very clear with the select committee about what he intends to do, and we have absolute confidence in his ability to do that. We want to ensure that the public has that confidence as well, so it is really important that we do not have members of this House undermining the Chief Ombudsman and the important role that he has to do.

He talked to the select committee about the importance of ensuring that members look at the shape of the requests that they are making. He will be attacking that backlog that is there. We are all, I guess particularly from the Opposition side of the House, very aware of that backlog. We all have Official Information Act requests that have been denied, for what we do not believe are reasonable reasons, but also that have been delayed in getting back to us. Many of us have been waiting for months for what we think should be given to us on time.

Just to explain the problem that we have and that the Chief Ombudsman is going to be attacking—we have had an increase of about 40 percent over the past 5 years in the workload of the Office of the Ombudsmen. In 2014-15 the office received 12,151 complaints and other contacts about the administrative conduct and decisions of Government agencies. This has been acknowledged in the funding, by the select committee, of eight additional investigating staff.

Although some progress has been made in the net clearance in 2014-15 of 98.5 percent of complaints and contacts closed in a reporting year, as a proportion of total complaints and contacts received during that year, the number of aged investigations—that is, the number awaiting closure for over a year—is unacceptably high.

So we are looking forward to the Chief Ombudsman doing what he said he will do, in attacking that backlog and getting this office back into shape. We have absolute confidence in the Chief Ombudsman’s ability to do the job. I think I will leave it at that. I just hope that members of this House will get behind the Chief Ombudsman and support him to undertake the really important work that he has to do.

Motion agreed to, and Address agreed to.