Cosgrove Clayton: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-GeneralText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Offices of Parliament — Address to Governor-General[Sitting date: 15 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17238. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Like other Opposition members I support this report in respect of the Ombudsman the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Auditor-General. But can I start by echoing some of the concerns that other members have raised. If I start with the Auditor-General I want to take this opportunity to thank the Auditor-General and her officials for the work they do particularly in relation to something close to a number of our hearts—at least on this side of the House—and that is Solid Energy. There would not have been an inquiry had it not been for the Auditor-General. After 12 months of waste mismanagement and lack of governance; after a number of years of lack of oversight by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and his shareholding Minister the Minister of Finance; after the Government turned down the request for a ministerial inquiry or an independent inquiry; and after the Government’s toadies and lackeys on the Commerce Committee blocked at every attempt a request for an inquiry it was the Auditor-General who agreed to an inquiry after I wrote to her after the banking issues had been settled after we had lost $400 million and 800 jobs to date. It was only the independent Office of the Auditor-General who agreed to hold a limited inquiry—and I accept that—into what happened in terms of Solid Energy. To date that is all we have got.She made inquiries into the governance and management and decisions that were made between the previous board the previous chief executive and the previous management group. She looked at communication flows. She did not believe it was appropriate—and I think to be fair to her she is legally precluded or at least did not believe it was appropriate—to look at ministerial accountability. Although the Auditor-General did a superb job within the office and within the mandate she had even after that inquiry we are still no further ahead in finding out which individuals are accountable for the biggest collapse of a State-owned enterprise in our history. Eight hundred jobs are gone and $400 million has gone down the gurgler. There was mismanagement bonuses extravagant expenditure and a chief executive who ended up going on gardening leave. We had to pry the truth out of Solid Energy through the instrument of a financial review unsupported by the Government unsupported by Ministers who today just simply do not want to know.Minister Tony Ryall will go down in history as the worst most negligent and most incompetent Minister for State Owned Enterprises that we have had to date in New Zealand’s history—likewise so will Bill English. There are piles feet and metres of paper and warnings from Treasury and from UBS the consultants who were ironically sent in to scope Solid Energy for sale. There were warning signs including the ability to just open the newspaper and work out that the coal price had blown apart and that international markets such as China were reducing their volumes purchased. Ministers knew that but they did not sack anyone. Mr Ryall of course was fond of trying to portray that board members resigning was a result of him. No one got sacked except 800 workers who paid with their jobs to try to keep the show on the road. No one in the executive team or the board got sacked. There was no intervention to change the statement of corporate intent by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. Absolutely nothing happened. It was total and utter incompetence—worse than incompetence. Every avenue of inquiry was blocked every attempt to provide answers for taxpayers was blocked and every attempt to find the person or the group of people who were accountable was blocked. Of course the Minister would never say it was him. He washed his hands of it. Had it not been for the Auditor-General finally agreeing to hold a limited inquiry we would not even have the answers we have today. So I thank the Auditor-General for her response and for again showing the value that she adds to our little democracy.I also want to come to the Ombudsman. Dame BeverleyWakem like the Auditor-General and her officers and officials does an outstanding job. We have already heard from Grant Robertson how for years—I would argue deliberately—this Government has starved that office of resources. We have already heard that that office was funded for around 1000 to 1200 complaints per year under action and open at any given time yet if you glance at the annual report you see that it indicates that the office received 13684 complaints an increase of 29 percent for the 2011-12 year.And then we get to the earthquake complaints. Of course Mr Brownlee got up. He has presided over a Government agency that has broken the law in terms of the Official Information Act for months—for nigh on a year. Mr Brownlee presided over an agency that has simply thumbed its nose at the Official Information Act requests put in by earthquake victims. Mr Brownlee got up and said that the only reason these complaints have increased is the Opposition members of Parliament. Well that is partly true because our job—why we get the Queen’s shilling—is to try to prise information and the truth and some facts out of that mob over there. But that does not actually explain the hundreds and hundreds of Official Information Act requests that earthquake victims have made. You have got to ask yourself—and Mr Brownlee does not seem to sort of quite get it—why people ordinary folk in deep difficulty in terms of navigating theirpersonal arrangements with the Earthquake Commission and trying to get their lives and houses back would go to the extent of using the Official Information Act.Well it is quite simple. If you look at the litany of incompetence in respect of the Earthquake Commission you see that the Official Information Act is the only avenue those people have. It is the only avenue and the Ombudsman in her report to the Government Administration Committee I believe it was cited that fact absolutely. People have run out of gas. They write to the Minister; they get nowhere. They for instance ring the Earthquake Commission as at least one case has and five different phone calls to the commission in one day get five different answers. Commitments to give information and commitments to give scope of works materialise in nothing. So maybe they write to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission and they get nowhere there. They come to members of Parliament like ourselves on this side we write to the Minister and we get nowhere. So the last opportunity they have apart from going to court—and sadly most of them do not have a lot of dough to do that—is to use the Official Information Act.We know that Gerry Brownlee knowingly as a Minister even though he blames his department—I tell you I say they will put a silver plaque up in this Chamber in tribute to Gerry Brownlee on the day he comes out and says: “I take responsibility for the stuff-ups in my agency the Earthquake Commission.” I say to you that they will erect it—because of course Gerry Brownlee is the apologist for the insurance industry the big end of town—on the day that Gerry Brownlee actually says “I take responsibility.” not “I’m disappointed with my chief executive.” or “I’m disappointed with the Earthquake Commission.” or “They didn’t tell me.” or “I didn’t read the briefing paper—woe is me.” No one day he may get up and say: “I take responsibility for my department and I am going in to see Ian Simpson and by hell I am going to sort it out.” That will be a red-letter historic day in this Parliament for that Minister.The Ombudsman said that in terms of processing Official Information Act requests where the commission has broken the law—broken the law time and again by breaching the deadline—one of the problems is the sort of hierarchy and mishmash of approvals that basic Official Information Act requests have to go through. It is really interesting when you look at the questions in respect of the Earthquake Commission because it was basically asked how many Official Information Act requests from Opposition members and Opposition research units go through the Minister’s office for approval. It was 96 percent—that is 96 percent go up to Mr Brownlee’s office where they are sat on for a period of time until he deems it appropriate that they be released.The other interesting thing is that for instance it took 72 days for my office to actually get a copy of the Earthquake Commission’s internal structure which should have been on its website anyway. It took 72 days using an Official Information Act request to get the basic Earthquake Commission structure. It took 200-plus days for me to get on behalf of the group Wider Earthquake Communities Action Network which is helping and advocating for earthquake victims a basic Official Information Act response that you would think after 200 days would measure several metres high. But it was about two reams of paper. It took 200-plus days even after the commission had said to the Wider Earthquake Communities Action Network which had put the original Official Information Act request in: “We’ll accept it but we want $24000 from a community group to process it.” So I took it over and the commission dare not charge a member of Parliament because that becomes a big issue. It can pull the wool and try it. It accepted it and its first salvo to me was: “We’ll consider whether we accept it.”There is a culture in that place right up to the office of the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission that thumbs it nose at the Ombudsman—thumbs its nose at the Ombudsman. That Minister is quite happy for his agency to continue to break thelaw and not provide people with the information they require. Mr Brownlee has made a rod for his own back.