Auchinvole Chris: Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5417. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill put forward by the Hon Shane Jones. This bill would enable the Ombudsmen to recover the cost of their investigations from the agencies being investigated. This is the plan of the bill but frankly it would not be the only outcome and it would not I do not think be as effective as is suggested. This bill lacks the thumbprint of work done by that member normally. 
When I think back to the times I have worked with the Hon Shane Jones I think of the Resource Management Act and the emissions trading scheme—all sort of major legislation that has involved him over the last few years. Clearly he is a powerhouse within the ranks of Labour a towering intellect and a powerful debater yet this is what we get. To put it flatly this is a premature bill that will satisfy neither the needs of the Office of the Ombudsmen nor the needs of the taxpayers of New Zealand. It is a bill that seems to have been put together by someone simply wanting to fill the members’ bill bucket. [ 
Interruption 
] It is premature. 
The Government acknowledges and appreciates the importance of the oversight the Ombudsmen provide and their contribution to a just and fair society. However the Government also acknowledges something the member across the Chamber has yet toand that has been the unintended fiscal consequences that could arrive without proper investigation of shifting the costs from Government agencies to the Ombudsmen’s budget. It is a peculiar suggestion and I really wonder how involved Shane has been with putting this bill together because suddenly you are allowing people you could say to write their own cheques. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The promoter of this bill is the Hon Shane Jones. He is not “Shane”. He is the Hon Shane Jones and even if you have got new backbenchers over there we must not let our standards drop in this House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I shall rule on that. I think the member who was speaking is aware of that and I think it was perhaps a blemish in his utterances. I just ask him to be cognisant of the fact that he should use the appropriate nomenclature. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and I acknowledge a little bit of a lapse there in the normal— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Egregious! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: An egregious lapse? I do not think it was an egregious lapse and I am grateful to the Rt Hon Winston Peters for just reminding me of that fact. 
However let us go back to the bill. Robert K Merton then of Harvard University stated this in his article “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action”. It was published in the  
American Sociological Review 
. He quotes: “The most obvious limitation to a correct anticipation of consequences of action is provided by the existing state of knowledge.” 
In this bill you are looking at half an equation. What you are saying is: “Gosh! They’re a bit short of money. Let’s give them the capacity to charge more.” I wonder what sort of a political tool that could be in the hands of an imaginative Opposition member. It could be very very useful. There is no conflict of interest we are assured. Where does this assurance come from? It is from the Hon Shane Jones who is putting the bill into Parliament. He has given us his verbal assurance that there is no conflict of interest. Do we need to take it further? I think not because he is an honourable man. Do you know I am honestly left wondering how much he really understands the bill. It is quite common when we stand to speak on a bill for members on the other side to say: “Do you understand what you’re talking about?”; “Do you really know this bill?”. Well we can reverse the charge in this case and even though the member used his wonderful vocabulary his entertaining tongue his— 
David Bennett 
: Oh that’s immaterial. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Oh no no he does and let us be fair about this. He blends the benefits of Welsh culture Maori culture and Yugoslav determination. That was his own description of himself as he gloried in the genetic mix. Although we have all done the same and we did enjoy listening to him we will not on this side of the House be supporting the passage of this bill. Thank you.