Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Getting with—what did you say? Getting with it? Getting on the same planet? Getting up to speed and on action? Mr Tabuteau this bill was put in the ballot 5 years ago.Hon David Parker: No it wasn't.ALASTAIR SCOTT: OK when was it put in the ballot Mr Parker?Hon David Parker: 6 months ago.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well it was Mr Shane Jones' member's bill and it is way out of date way past its use-by date.It is interesting coming into the latter part of the debate you do learn a lot of stuff around the history of the ombudsmen—from Mr Paul Foster-Bell for example. I did not realise we were one of the first countries to create that position. And of course we continue to lead the development of the Office of the Ombudsmen.As I say this bill has passed its useful date. I was a little bit surprised to see David Parker's name on the bill because I thought it would not be a typical bill from Mr Parker. The last one that I saw from Mr Parker at least was the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill and that was an interesting bill. It had a bit of substance and there was good debate around that. But this—this is well past its use-by date.There are two strands to the bill that I can see. The first is around funding. It is called a cost recovery amendment bill. So the question is whether the Office of the Ombudsmen is underfunded. Does it need to cost recover in the first place? The statistics from the Office of the Ombudsmen tell us that 70 percent of new complaints are dealt with within 3 months. They have reduced their number of complaints on hand to under 1400 and they are on track to halving the number of complaints by 30 June 2017. In fact: It is clear that soon we will have no backlog." So that does not look like an office that is underfunded. They are getting the job done efficiently and effectively.The problem also with the idea that you go cost recovering from an independent agency is that the perceived independence of that agency must be lost.Hon David Parker: Why?ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is important—well because if you are paid by a second party you are only interested in increasing the business with that second party if you are going to get paid for it. If there is any transaction based on the volume of business then there is a perceived incentive to do more business and that is what we cannot have in an independent Office of the Ombudsmen.The second strand to this is that the fine or the cost recovery fine if you like the cost to do business should be according to Mr Parker an incentive for the agencies to behave—to behave more appropriately quicker faster and more efficiently in getting their answers to the office. But again it is out of date. We need only go to the Ombudsmen's office's website to see only 5 days ago 5 May 2017: "Inside the Office of the Ombudsman—An update on what's going on in the Office of the Ombudsman to increase openness accountability and good administration." This was a speech by the Chief Ombudsman—so only 5 days ago. The thing that has surpassed the notion of this bill is that there is a huge amount of transparency. The transparency is what I think David Parker is looking for in this bill to get those agencies to act more quickly. It is not a fine a compliance cost or a cost of recovery that is going to motivate those agencies to behave. It is daylight it is transparency and that is what the Office of the Ombudsmen has been doing and will continue to do. It leads the world in transparency and lack of corruption and I commend the office for doing the work that they do."