Jones Shane: Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena no tatou 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 $700000 which is the difference between the $300000 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 $700000—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. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: 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 Maori 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.