Mallard Trevor: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1754. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I rise also to support the motion although I think it is fair to say not quite as enthusiastically as some of my colleagues. I frankly think there is a debate about whether this motion should be passed as it sits especially as we learn more of the range of views expressed by the Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem as to the amount that is necessary to run that office properly and as we read of the workload problems and the view of the Government Administration Committee—the unanimous view—that “reductions in agency complaint service staffing will reduce agencies’ ability to handle complaints and may adversely affect quality assurance in practice and process leading to errors or misjudgements maladministration and potentially corruption.” That is an area of considerable concern. I think it is fair to say that in New Zealand we do pride ourselves on being No.1 or sometimes No. 2 in the list of least corrupt nations and that is something we want to jealously guard. 
That is not to say that I think all spending on the part of all of these agencies is well spent. I think I have made myself slightly unpopular with a number of colleagues with my views—with a number of my views actually—[ 
Interruption 
] Thank you Rev. Dr David Clark! He knows that interjecting on me like that is—well he will find out that revenge is a dish best served cold and I will deal with him later on. But the question of the level of paperwork and of time spent supporting select committees although it may be appreciated by my learned colleague Charles Chauvel I think is something— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Who? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He is learned and the member should know that. The problem I have is that I think that for a lot of members it serves—listening to the Audit Office staff at the select committee in the quarter of an hour before the agency comes in for the review of estimate processes—as their homework. It means that too often members especially members from that quadrant of the House over there do not read through the annual reports they do not read through the questionnaires and they do not look at the issues properly. I know that it is not a good thing to hark back to the past but— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Go on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will. In the time that I was first a member of Parliament there was one select committee staffer for every two committees so there was either a Tuesday-Wednesday or a Wednesday-Thursday arrangement depending on what stage the bill was. The staffer of the select committee had two committees and if one was really busy one of the other people came and helped. Now we seem to have three staff and we have augmentation by Audit Office staff coming in. I think some members in a way think it is the job of the Audit Office to tell them what to think. I think that stops them from working hard in their constituencies to identify the issues that are important for estimates and for financial reviews and that for some people it means they do not read properly the background documentation that is available. So what I am saying there is that I am not for always having more money if we do not look carefully at how money is spent. 
There is another area where I will be later on seeking a level of assurance from the Speaker and that is that he will as the chair of the Officers of Parliament Committee work very hard to ensure that if in fact the mixed-ownership model legislation is passed the Office of the Auditor-General will retain the audit functions for those partially privatised State-owned enterprises. I think that that is important in having a level of assurance for the taxpayer—to make sure that we have people who have a reputation that I think sits above that of auditors generally who have that reputation for understanding what the public interest is involved on a continuing basis. I would be opposed to any reduction in their authority and their ability to investigate. 
I might also say—and it goes more to the Ombudsman—that I will be strongly fighting to retain the right of the Ombudsman to become involved in both Ombudsman’s cases and Official Information Act cases with regard to the partially privatised State-owned enterprises. I know that some people will find that pretty hard but I was involved with both the select committee that set up the State-owned enterprises and the Government Administration Committee where I chaired a review of the way that those Acts worked vis-à-vis the State-owned enterprises. What we found was that it had been almost no problem and that there was a very clear understanding of what is commercially sensitive. Frankly something that is commercially sensitive for Mighty River Power is about the same as for Contact Energy and there were places where information was not made publicly available. But there are some things that are in the public interest and where it is appropriate to ensure that the State-owned enterprises are doing what they should. My argument is that companies that are majority-owned by the Government certainly come into that category as well and we should make sure that that continues. 
 There are a number of areas where I think the Auditor-General can have a better look—than has currently occurred—at policy and developing policy. One of the areas is the private partnership type of model as far as roading is concerned and in particular more recently the arguments for charter schools. There is an enormous question in my mind that goes to value for money and it asks why we should be building new schools and different schools using some private financing system when in fact that money could be better applied to improving the schools we have already got. As many of my colleagues know—and some people have been involved when I have been reviewing schools in the past—I am certainly not of the view that everything should always stay the same. I think there is room for progress and there is room for change and I have some interest in models that can make improvements. But what does appear to be the case is that there is a fixation on the part of this Government and it should be checked by some property authority with an ability to make recommendations to this House on whether in fact these new models get proper value for money; I would support that. 
I note that the Hon Maurice Williamson—I understand he in the not too distant future is to be the Rt Hon Maurice Williamson—is sitting in the front row of the Government benches. What I am very keen on is that whoever replaces Mr Speaker in his role—when he moves to his new abode—is slightly more aggressive with the Minister of Finance and engages the team of the Officers of Parliament Committee more in ensuring that the organisations for which the Speaker is responsible get the money they need to properly do the job. I do not want this to be seen as any sort of reflection but I think it is important that when a parliamentary select committee is doing a job as this committee has done it has the full facts and we do not have Offices of Parliament coming with pre-arranged amounts to the committee. We need to hear what they say and what they think. I will support this motion without much enthusiasm. 
Motion agreed to and Address agreed to.