Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to take a short call to speak against the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill. I am not one of these MPs who rush every time it is member's bill draw time to see the biscuit tin being shaken but I know a number of my colleagues do on both sides of the House. What I can assure the House is that when the particular tin was shaken a few weeks ago and this particular bill fell out my learned colleague David Parker was not watching the tin waiting with bated breath to see whether his opportunity to make a difference in the New Zealand political situation was going to appear. In fact he was sitting right beside me and I do not know who was more shocked when he got the email—Hon David Parker: More pleased.TODD MULLER: Sorry more pleased or shocked or both. He had to recall: Did I have something in there? What was it? When did I put in there?" and so on. I could see some scurrying of papers as he sort of got his head around the fact that 5 years ago he was motivated to take—Hon David Parker: No that's not right. I had one out that you voted down recently.TODD MULLER: Well it seemed a long time ago anyway—2012 according to these notes which come from our communications team so I am sure they are 100 percent accurate.The point is that here we are having a conversation about a potential resolution that I think most of us would agree is trying to find a solution to a problem that arguably might have existed 5 years ago when the Office of the Ombudsmen was under arguably a bit of pressure in terms of funding. But I think one can cogently argue that events and budget investment have subsequently taken this particular issue over and resolved many of the concerns my honourable colleague Mr Parker had when he took to his pen all those years ago.In particular there was the increase in spending that we have already discussed here—it was lifted by 67 percent from $9 million to $15 million. And particularly I think and we heard it discussed by my colleague Paul Foster-Bell not only has there been an increase in funding that has resulted in the backlog which was real being addressed largely—and certainly it will be largely cleared I understand by June 2018 which is year faster than planned—but as often is the case it is not just the money and the increased funding that have gone into the office that have made a difference. It has been the change in both people and process that has lifted the productivity of the Ombudsman's office. My colleague Paul Foster-Bell stepped us through that but for completeness I think the focus on early resolution and more flexible practices makes a whole lot of sense and particularly the drive to have electronic and phone engagement as opposed to necessarily always having to pack up and go and visit people face to face. The specialised staff that has come on board which Paul Foster-Bell spoke so eloquently to I think has certainly assisted and so has making the process more visible to the public by putting it out on the website and creating a greater understanding amongst agencies in respect of the guides and the role of the Ombudsman and how it progresses.The other area that I have been impressed with was the statistic that now 70 percent of complaints are resolved within 3 months of receipt. That does not talk to an office that is critically underfunded. Indeed it talks to an office that was under pressure has had significant increase in funds relative to its initial budget employed more appropriate and specialised people rationalised and improved its processes and is delivering a result that I think by any measure is effective. We have got a good outcome. So I think the intent had merit all those years ago Mr Parker but now in my view events and funding have overtaken this as an issue. Therefore I do not see any reason to support the bill. Thank you."