Jones Dail: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Jones Dail: Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:608;Page:5124] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support the first motion with regard to the approval in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. There is no doubt about that aspect of the matter. In keeping with our role as an Opposition party and perhaps I suggest even as a member of Parliament one should pay close attention to the matters that come before the House concerning the expenditure of public money and of course in this particular area the funds that will be needed by the various departments to carry out their functions in the forthcoming year. 
I was on the Officers of Parliament Committee when these matters were discussed. I wish to record my concern in so far as Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is concerned. As I recall it some funds were being made available for travel. One always becomes concerned as to just how far this travel will extend financially and literally what people will come to New Zealand to visit us in return and just how this might grow. I record that New Zealand First has expressed its concern with regard to the utilisation of public funds in the area of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. We will make sure that it does not become excessive in the future. We have a very good Commission for the Environment and a very good concept. New Zealand has always been a place where the environment has been fully appreciated whether or not there has been some statutory body associated with it. 
I turn to Vote Ombudsmen. I am concerned as to whether sufficient funds would be available. I note in particular pages 27 28 and 29 of the Ombudsmen’s report for the year ended 30 June 2002 in relation to those aspects of the Official Information Act and advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister. The statement on page 27 states: “A significant issue arising this year has been the extent to which advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister may be withheld. A series of complaints were received regarding what was perceived to be a ‘class approach’ taken to the withholding of such information.” The report states that at the heart of the decision to withhold information was a fundamental concern that in order to carry out the role of Prime Minister effectively the incumbent must be able to receive and rely on with confidence free and frank advice from his or her advisers. Clearly that concern is valid. It is in the public interest for the Prime Minister of the day to receive such advice. 
The report states further: “However the Official Information Act does not provide any basis for blanket withholding of information generated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as an exempt ‘class of information’. Requests for such information must be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the tests for withholding set out in the Act.” 
I wonder whether adequate funds are made available this year for example with regard to the letters written or not written by officials in the Prime Minister’s department in respect of the apology to President Bush. As an Opposition party we should be entitled in terms of the Official Information Act provisions of Vote Ombudsmen to have access to such letters. That is our parliamentary duty. I believe that it is set out in the principles of Vote Ombudsmen and in the principles of the Official Information Act. The withholding of such information which is set out in the Ombudsmen’s report is very valid. I ask the Prime Minister to get back to New Zealand and to let us have details of the letter or letters that may or may not have been written in terms of the Official Information Act requirements. We should have this information released to the public of New Zealand. It should not be withheld on the basis of her views on the matter. 
In terms of the funding in this particular area there should be adequate funds for the Ombudsman to have the money to obtain that information from the Prime Minister’s department. I ask the next Government member who takes a call to say whether he or she is satisfied that such funding is available. It would seem to be a very difficult and expensive task to have the time and facilities available to keep pursuing the Prime Minister to get this information from her. 
 I believe that there is not sufficient funding available in this vote to get this information. Why is the information not made available immediately to make it unnecessary to have such funding? Why is it that time and time again Opposition members have to make demands of the Prime Minister to get this information? I remember a time when the Prime Minister was very strong on things like open government. If she were still strong on open government then the question of funding would not arise. I remember a time when the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark was very strong on answerability by the Government to the Opposition. Well we want her to be answerable. Is there enough funding in this vote to enable us to pursue the question of whether we could make the Prime Minister answerable to the public of New Zealand? That point is raised as a criticism in this particular report. Perhaps it has not been noticed by other parties in this House. New Zealand First is concerned that in this report the Ombudsman has expressed a criticism of the way in which this Prime Minister and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet are handling its affairs. 
We know that the Ombudsman is loathe to criticise Ministers and would be even more loathe to criticise a Prime Minister. But there is clearly an implicit criticism of the way in which this department is handling the affairs of State. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet clearly is of concern to the Ombudsman and it is of concern to New Zealand First. We want to make sure that we can get access to those letters that have been written and that there is sufficient funding in this vote to have that access. 
We want the Prime Minister to tell us why she will make it so difficult for us to get this information. Why is she swanning around at services overseas when she is needed here in New Zealand to answer such questions and to answer the need for the funding to enable us to bring this information to hand? I wish to draw that matter to the attention of this House. The Ombudsman is very right in bringing this matter to the attention of the country and New Zealand First will be making sure that all steps are taken to ensure that there are adequate funds to get to the bottom of the matter.