Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16217] 
2.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is all Government funding that is allocated to non-governmental organisations including trusts conditional upon audited accounts being produced by the recipient; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Government agencies are expected to ensure accountability for public money and Government contracts are monitored for proof that public money is used properly. That information comes from a range of sources which is not limited to audited accounts. Payment can be withheld until information required under the terms of contracts is provided. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister accept that until the capacity to monitor Government funding arrangements with non-governmental organisations is vastly improved then Pipi Foundation and Waipareira Trust - type scandals will become a recurring and painful nightmare and the people who are supposed to benefit from such public funds will continue to be ripped off? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not accept that. I do not accept necessarily that that will always follow. I do accept the member’s underlying assertion that it is useful to revisit some of the issues surrounding what evidence is provided but I am sure he and I would both agree in the context of other legislation before a select committee that one must also be aware of not overloading voluntary organisations with compliance costs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that the Auditor-General stated as far back as February 2003 that there are “real problems” in the capacity of agencies to monitor Government funding arrangements with the non-governmental organisation sector and that that would be treated by him as a high priority; if so why has that gaping hole in best-practice procedures not yet been plugged? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I thank the member for reminding me of that but I do repeat again that it is important not to overreact to particular circumstances and end up with an excessive range of compliance costs on voluntary organisations whereby they spend all their time meeting Government requirements for information as opposed to actually doing their work. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would the Minister agree that the audit processes on organisations like the Waipareira Trust have been wanting especially since John Tamihere was able to say on Friday that the information about the golden handshake was known in 2000 when he was investigated by five organisations including the Prime Minister’s own department; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point I think there is some confusion. An offer was made to Mr Tamihere in 1999. He did not accept that offer at that point. That has been made clear in recent times. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The comment from Mr Tamihere was that the golden handshake was known about in 2000 not 1999. It was known about at the time that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was itself investigating some activities relating to Mr Tamihere and the Waipareira Trust. I think that is a very salient point that the Acting Prime Minister should not try to dodge. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The principal part of the question was about the auditing requirements. I would point out that even in the great United States of America massive corporates have had troubles with auditing in recent years not just small voluntary organisations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was the Prime Minister aware that in past times the Waipareira Trust has declared an unrealised profit on a development as being present income which is something that is totally illegal and bearing that in mind what are we to make of the inquiries that she instituted including a Serious Fraud Office inquiry and more particularly of its competence in doing the job it was asked to do? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I was not aware of that first point. Matters relating to the trust were investigated very thoroughly in 2000. If one cares to reread those reports one sees they can scarcely be regarded as a whitewash given some of the criticisms that were made of the management of the trust. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why when applicants are unable to access grants from the Lottery Grants Board unless they provide audited accounts and agree to provide detailed information on how grants are spent do non-governmental organisations continue to receive funds from the Government without those essential safeguards and when will such folly come to an end? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member raises a useful point which should be looked at. But again the purpose from the Government perspective is to make sure the money provided for a particular purpose is spent on that purpose. The other aspects of the accounts may not be relevant to the Government’s concerns. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek leave to table a series of documents: firstly my letter to the Controller and Auditor-General of 24 February raising an issue about accountability. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Secondly the Controller and Auditor-General’s reply to me on 28 February 2003 stating that there are real problems in this area and that it is a high priority. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: And thirdly an extract from the annual plan of the Auditor-General for 2004-05 stating that this issue remains a matter of concern to him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.